Re: this'n'that

Re : Johnys statement(s). I don't know... and I sympathise.

Meanwhile, I've gotten really excited about 77ED2. It seems to be
a good schismic style tuning with virtually perfect (3/2) and
it has 7ED2 and 11ED2 embedded.

Now, if that wasn't enough to get the muse drooling, it also has
5ED(3/2) AND 9ED(3/2) embedded (note how neither are
6 or 7 ED(3/2), it does NOT seem to be MIRACLE-ous).

9ED(3/2) looks something like

0
78
156 12/11
234 8/7
312 6/5
390 5/4
468 21/16
546 11/8
624 10/7 <- this is pretty weak
702 3/2

It has a bunch of other nifty divisions of the basic consonances
as well (4ED(4/3), 3ED(5/3), 7ED(15/8)). Probably more cool stuff
in there too, anyone have any anecdotes about 77 they could share?

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> Re : Johnys statement(s). I don't know... and I sympathise.
>
> Meanwhile, I've gotten really excited about 77ED2. It seems to be
> a good schismic style tuning with virtually perfect (3/2) and
> it has 7ED2 and 11ED2 embedded.
>
> Now, if that wasn't enough to get the muse drooling, it also has
> 5ED(3/2) AND 9ED(3/2) embedded (note how neither are
> 6 or 7 ED(3/2), it does NOT seem to be MIRACLE-ous).
>
> 9ED(3/2) looks something like
>
> 0
> 78
> 156 12/11
> 234 8/7
> 312 6/5
> 390 5/4
> 468 21/16
> 546 11/8
> 624 10/7 <- this is pretty weak
> 702 3/2

You can do this in 31-tET, since the 3/2 is 18 steps of 31-tET.
>
> It has a bunch of other nifty divisions of the basic consonances
> as well (4ED(4/3), 3ED(5/3), 7ED(15/8)). Probably more cool stuff
> in there too, anyone have any anecdotes about 77 they could share?

Hmm . . . 77 has great fifths because it's 53+12+12. It's actually
only consistent through the 9-limit, but with such small steps, who
cares about consistency. I've talked a lot about 76 (where there are
two different sizes of ~3/2) but no, not 77.

> From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: this'n'that
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> >
> > 9ED(3/2) looks something like
> >
>
> You can do this in 31-tET, since the 3/2 is 18 steps of 31-tET.

Doh! (Homer Simpson quote). I don't know why I didn't think of
that, another reason to look forward to getting that guitar, though
I'll have to get the heavy duty finger-sharpener to play that scale.

In 31, the RI interpretations are (mostly) better and more apparent.

1/1 25/24 12/11 8/7 6/5 5/4 21/16 11/8 10/7 3/2
21/20 11/10
35/32

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
>
> > From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: this'n'that
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:
> > >
> > > 9ED(3/2) looks something like
> > >
> >
> > You can do this in 31-tET, since the 3/2 is 18 steps of 31-tET.
>
> Doh! (Homer Simpson quote). I don't know why I didn't think of
> that, another reason to look forward to getting that guitar, though
> I'll have to get the heavy duty finger-sharpener to play that >
scale.

It's not too bad -- steps of 77 cents. I discovered it on the 31-tET
guitar while improvising with some loops -- that's why I recognized
it when I saw it in your post on 77-tET (ooh . . . 77 . . . spooky).