adaptive tuning (Speed limit: 4.7 cents/sec., Warped Canons)

> And 34-tET sounds particularly vivid to me, though I don't know why.
>
> JdL

I hear it too; probably the positive fifths. Compare to 37, 22, and
17 equal.

4.7 cent/sec. does seem too slow. Manuel, does the article say how
this figure was arrived at?

It's my feeling that this "charge" method is used in performance,
along with corrective root motion, just going flat, and just not
being in JI. One thing that probably never happens is adaptive
temperament, ala John's latest stuff. That doesn't mean it
(adaptive temperament) isn't desirable, although it isn't for me.

The warped canons are great. Herman, these were done with
midiconv? All are a blast, 5-limit major sounding best to my
ear. The accordion patch on my laptop has no chorus, and sounds
very much like the venerable reed organ. There are some passing
dissonances in 5-limit JI which (say) 31 doesn't have, but I
enjoy these, and think they serve the music well. I'll
certainly take dispute with any notion that subtle beating helps
separate parts in this environment. Vary we may on melodic
taste, but will someone say the tuning where the part seperation
is better than 5-limit major!

Herman, I gather there was an original 8-tET version before the
one with the percussion timbres? Could you re-post it?

-Carl

[I wrote:]
>>And 34-tET sounds particularly vivid to me, though I don't know why.

[Carl Lumma wrote:]
>I hear it too; probably the positive fifths. Compare to 37, 22, and
>17 equal.

I think you're right! I have a dim recollection of playing with 34-tET
years ago on my Korg and thinking the same thing. At the time I thought
that slightly wide fifths might be the way to go; hmmm...

[Carl:]
>4.7 cent/sec. does seem too slow. Manuel, does the article say how
>this figure was arrived at?

Yeah, it'd take 4.58 seconds just to eat a syntonic comma! Still, from
the standpoint of avoiding a queasy sensation of drift, it might be a
reasonable value.

>It's my feeling that this "charge" method is used in performance,
>along with corrective root motion, just going flat, and just not
>being in JI. One thing that probably never happens is adaptive
>temperament, ala John's latest stuff. That doesn't mean it
>(adaptive temperament) isn't desirable, although it isn't for me.

Dang, thought you liked my work, Carl! :-/ Though you're keen to
pull all vertical intervals to exact JI, whatever the horizontal cost,
yes?

>The warped canons are great. Herman, these were done with
>midiconv? All are a blast, 5-limit major sounding best to my
>ear. The accordion patch on my laptop has no chorus, and sounds
>very much like the venerable reed organ. There are some passing
>dissonances in 5-limit JI which (say) 31 doesn't have, but I
>enjoy these, and think they serve the music well. I'll
>certainly take dispute with any notion that subtle beating helps
>separate parts in this environment. Vary we may on melodic
>taste, but will someone say the tuning where the part seperation
>is better than 5-limit major!

I thought the vividness of the 34-tET included better part separation
than the 5-limit JI.

JdL

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 10:33 AM
> Subject: [tuning] adaptive tuning (Speed limit: 4.7 cents/sec., Warped
Canons)
>
>
> ... There are some passing dissonances in 5-limit JI which
> (say) 31 doesn't have, but I enjoy these, and think they serve
> the music well. I'll certainly take dispute with any notion
> that subtle beating helps separate parts in this environment.
> Vary we may on melodic taste, but will someone say the tuning
> where the part seperation is better than 5-limit major!

Wow, Carl, these are two terrific points!
I see them as being very closely related.

I've agreed many times in the past on the first point.
One reason I love working in JI so much is the variety
of different interval sizes.

But I agree with you also that the part separation is best in
the 5-limit JI major tuning, and it seems to me that the reason
this is so is because the high variety of interval sizes
in *melodic* motion helps the ear to distinguish the various
parts, by giving each part its own unique character.

I got to wondering why this is so with 5-limit JI, since
an equal-temperament such as 53-EDO approximates it so well
and yet sounds so different. After writing that sentence,
I just *had* to compare 72-EDO with 5-limit JI back-to-back,
in light of Ezra Sims's comments about not being able to
tell the difference in computer renditions of his own music.

72-EDO to my ears was the closest of any of the other tunings
to the 5-limit JI version, but I *still* heard a difference,
or at least I think I did. It would be interesting to do
these kinds of tests without knowing beforehand what the
tunings are. But It seems to me that the ear recognizes some
extremely subtle differences in intonation.

> Herman Miller's "Warped Canon" page:
http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/warped-canon.html

Herman, I'm long overdue to congratulate you on a job
so well done! It would be nice to have the whole page
converted into mp3s and perhaps put up at mp3.com.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>[Carl:]
>>4.7 cent/sec. does seem too slow. Manuel, does the article say how
>>this figure was arrived at?
>
>Yeah, it'd take 4.58 seconds just to eat a syntonic comma! Still,
>from the standpoint of avoiding a queasy sensation of drift, it
>might be a reasonable value.

I guess there's only one way to find out...

>>It's my feeling that this "charge" method is used in performance,
>>along with corrective root motion, just going flat, and just not
>>being in JI. One thing that probably never happens is adaptive
>>temperament, ala John's latest stuff. That doesn't mean it
>>(adaptive temperament) isn't desirable, although it isn't for me.
>
>Dang, thought you liked my work, Carl! :-/

I do like your work.

>Though you're keen to pull all vertical intervals to exact JI,
>whatever the horizontal cost, yes?

I believe it is possible to achieve satisfactory results without
tempering vertical intervals. Even if this was shown not to be
the case, my interest in retuning the work of the past is not so
great that I couldn't leave unchanged the music that didn't work.

As far as music of the future, I rather like David Doty's
statement: "it's a feature, not a bug". I will admit that
composing music that modulates in JI can be very difficult, at
least with existing tools.

Even with the sprung vertical intervals, the version of bge I
have was unable to retune some of my work without very painful
horizontal problems... even in 5-limit JI.

>I thought the vividness of the 34-tET included better part
>separation than the 5-limit JI.

Zow. I'd better make mp3s of what I'm hearing.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> After writing that sentence,
> I just *had* to compare 72-EDO with 5-limit JI back-to-back,
> in light of Ezra Sims's comments about not being able to
> tell the difference in computer renditions of his own music.
>
> 72-EDO to my ears was the closest of any of the other tunings
> to the 5-limit JI version, but I *still* heard a difference,
> or at least I think I did. It would be interesting to do
> these kinds of tests without knowing beforehand what the
> tunings are. But It seems to me that the ear recognizes some
> extremely subtle differences in intonation.

Dear Mr. Monz:

What is the resolution of your equipment? Do you use midi or some
kind of DSP?

Xavier Jacques

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> But I agree with you also that the part separation is best in
> the 5-limit JI major tuning, and it seems to me that the reason
> this is so is because the high variety of interval sizes
> in *melodic* motion helps the ear to distinguish the various
> parts, by giving each part its own unique character.

That doesn't make a lot of sense (to me). How do the different
interval sizes give each part its own unique character, when all the
parts have the same set of different interval sizes? Even if this did
make sense, the 41-tET, 34-tET and 22-tET versions have just as much
variety of interval sizes as the JI version, but with a greater
difference between the different "inflections" of particular
intervals, so JI wouldn't stand out in this regard.
>
> I got to wondering why this is so with 5-limit JI, since
> an equal-temperament such as 53-EDO approximates it so well
> and yet sounds so different.

That's weird. It shouldn't sound audibly different (at least it
didn't to me when I listened to it). But maybe you could hear the
extremely slow beating in 53-tET?

>> ... There are some passing dissonances in 5-limit JI which
>> (say) 31 doesn't have, but I enjoy these, and think they serve
>> the music well. I'll certainly take dispute with any notion
>> that subtle beating helps separate parts in this environment.
>> Vary we may on melodic taste, but will someone say the tuning
>> where the part seperation is better than 5-limit major!
>
> But I agree with you also that the part separation is best in
> the 5-limit JI major tuning, and it seems to me that the reason
> this is so is because the high variety of interval sizes
> in *melodic* motion helps the ear to distinguish the various
> parts, by giving each part its own unique character.

Quite possible. I have always heard it as a clarity of sound,
though... on a timbral sort of level. But who knows what cues
I'm actually using. All I can say is that I've spent a lot of
time listening to polyphonic music, and I like picking out voices
in the music I hear, and this has always been easier for me
in JI when the comparison was available.

> I got to wondering why this is so with 5-limit JI, since
> an equal-temperament such as 53-EDO approximates it so well
> and yet sounds so different.

Different, you say? I'm shocked. In fact, I haven't even heard
the 53-tET canon, as I assumed it would sound the same as 5-limit
JI. I'll listen to it tomorrow.

> 72-EDO to my ears was the closest of any of the other tunings
> to the 5-limit JI version, but I *still* heard a difference,
> or at least I think I did.

72-tET sounds noticably rougher than 5-limit JI to me. I'd be
amazed if 53 didn't sound smoother.

> It would be interesting to do these kinds of tests without
> knowing beforehand what the tunings are.

If you're running some version of the FAT file system, you can do
this by adding some long word to the beginning of all the file
names, and then playing them by calling their truncated 8.3 names
from a DOS box, making notes somewhere, and later using dir to
link the truncated and long names.

-Carl

> > Herman Miller's "Warped Canon" page:
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/warped-canon.html

Wow, I just listened to the one in 23-TET and it blew
me away! What beautiful counterpoint!

And I agree with David Finnamore about 33-EDO...
the Pachelbel Canon in this tuning is gorgeous.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 2:15 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: adaptive tuning (Speed limit: 4.7 cents/sec., Warped
Canons)
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > But I agree with you also that the part separation is best in
> > the 5-limit JI major tuning, and it seems to me that the reason
> > this is so is because the high variety of interval sizes
> > in *melodic* motion helps the ear to distinguish the various
> > parts, by giving each part its own unique character.
>
> That doesn't make a lot of sense (to me). How do the different
> interval sizes give each part its own unique character, when all the
> parts have the same set of different interval sizes?

Yes, overall, considering the entire piece, all the parts have
the same intervals. But locally during any given couple-of-measures
chunk of time, each part has a unique set of intervals in its melody.

> Even if this did
> make sense, the 41-tET, 34-tET and 22-tET versions have just as much
> variety of interval sizes as the JI version, but with a greater
> difference between the different "inflections" of particular
> intervals, so JI wouldn't stand out in this regard.

Hmmm... OK, consider that message a first response.
I'm going to be listening to these warped canons for a long
time, and will say more as I listen more.

> >
> > I got to wondering why this is so with 5-limit JI, since
> > an equal-temperament such as 53-EDO approximates it so well
> > and yet sounds so different.
>
> That's weird. It shouldn't sound audibly different (at least it
> didn't to me when I listened to it). But maybe you could hear the
> extremely slow beating in 53-tET?

I'm listening again to the 5-limit JI and 53-TET versions.
I hear beating even in the JI version, I assume due to vibrato
etc. But there's much more beating in the 53-TET version,
even tho the 53-TET also has vertical sonorities which display
a nice "periodicity buzz". So, yes, there is a difference to me.

I hear the "buzz" in all the 5-limit files, all the "near just"
temperaments, and to varying degrees in the "meantones" other
than 12-TET.

No buzz in any of the rest, altho 37-TET comes close sometimes.

(Wow... I really like 36-TET too. Very evocative.)

Crystal CS4281 Legacy Audio Device and PCI Audio, and for the
better sounds I have the Yamaha S-YXG100plus SoftSynth. I've
listened to Herman's canons on both setups. So if anyone has
the specs on this stuff, Paul would like to know the resolution.

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Joe,
--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> I'm listening again to the 5-limit JI and 53-TET versions.

I'm totally lost in this thread, I've tried to go back to the source
and can't find what I want. Could you give me a link(s) to these two
versions/files?

TIA,
Jon

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 5:55 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: adaptive tuning (Speed limit: 4.7 cents/sec., Warped
Canons)
>
>
> Joe,
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> > I'm listening again to the 5-limit JI and 53-TET versions.
>
> I'm totally lost in this thread, I've tried to go back to the source
> and can't find what I want. Could you give me a link(s) to these two
> versions/files?

Sure, Jon:

> > Herman Miller's "Warped Canon" page:
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/warped-canon.html

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

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Monz,
> > > Herman Miller's "Warped Canon" page:
> > http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/warped-canon.html

Thanks!
J

On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:33:02 -0700, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

>The warped canons are great. Herman, these were done with
>midiconv? All are a blast, 5-limit major sounding best to my
>ear. The accordion patch on my laptop has no chorus, and sounds
>very much like the venerable reed organ. There are some passing
>dissonances in 5-limit JI which (say) 31 doesn't have, but I
>enjoy these, and think they serve the music well.

Yes, the wolf fifth is E-B in this tuning, which comes up in two cases: E
in the melody over a G major chord, and B in the melody over an A major
chord -- in both cases, it makes sense as a dissonant note. Another one is
the high B in the melody with F# minor in the harmony -- high enough that
it beats with the A in the F# minor chord rather than harmonizing with the
F#. Those are the ones I've noticed, at least.

> I'll
>certainly take dispute with any notion that subtle beating helps
>separate parts in this environment. Vary we may on melodic
>taste, but will someone say the tuning where the part seperation
>is better than 5-limit major!
>
>Herman, I gather there was an original 8-tET version before the
>one with the percussion timbres? Could you re-post it?

The 8-TET version is the original one I put up. But I could add another
version that matches the others for comparison.

--
see my music page ---> ---<http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/index.html>--
hmiller (Herman Miller) "If all Printers were determin'd not to print any
@io.com email password: thing till they were sure it would offend no body,
\ "Subject: teamouse" / there would be very little printed." -Ben Franklin

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_25148.html#25159

> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > But I agree with you also that the part separation is best in
> > the 5-limit JI major tuning, and it seems to me that the reason
> > this is so is because the high variety of interval sizes
> > in *melodic* motion helps the ear to distinguish the various
> > parts, by giving each part its own unique character.
>
> That doesn't make a lot of sense (to me). How do the different
> interval sizes give each part its own unique character, when all
the parts have the same set of different interval sizes? Even if this
did make sense, the 41-tET, 34-tET and 22-tET versions have just as
much variety of interval sizes as the JI version, but with a greater
> difference between the different "inflections" of particular
> intervals, so JI wouldn't stand out in this regard.
> >

I was actually puzzling over this myself... It didn't seem to make
sense, but then I thought that, well, maybe if the different sets of
intervals in different lines started on different sized scalar
elements in more a LINEAR exposition, maybe it would affect the part
separation to a degree.

However, certainly the unequal steps wouldn't affect the separation
as much as the SET PATTERNING of the melodic line, which would be a
similar process both in a scale of equal AND non-equal steps... (??)

_________ _______ _____
Joseph Pehrson

> I got to wondering why this is so with 5-limit JI, since
> an equal-temperament such as 53-EDO approximates it so well
> and yet sounds so different. After writing that sentence,
> I just *had* to compare 72-EDO with 5-limit JI back-to-back,
> in light of Ezra Sims's comments about not being able to
> tell the difference in computer renditions of his own music.
>
> 72-EDO to my ears was the closest of any of the other tunings
> to the 5-limit JI version, but I *still* heard a difference,
> or at least I think I did. It would be interesting to do
> these kinds of tests without knowing beforehand what the
> tunings are. But It seems to me that the ear recognizes some
> extremely subtle differences in intonation.

I can't really hear the difference between 53, 65, and 5-limit
tunings. There may be something slightly different about 65,
but I'd probably need training to tell it apart on a blind
test. 72 definitely sounds rougher than these three.

-Carl