Re: A guitar for Justin White's scale (was: re:microtemperament)

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:17:04 -0000
From: "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>
Subject: Re: A guitar for Justin White's scale (was: re:microtemperament)

--- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

--- In tuning@y..., "Justin White" <justin.white@d...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@y..., David C Keenan <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>> > Justin asked for a fingerboard design for his _just_ scale.
...
>> >
>> > But if a practical fingerboard design can be made for it, by using
a
> > microtemperament (i.e. one whose errors are small enough that it
still
>> > sounds just in most circumstances) then he may be willing to wear
it.
>>
>> Well that was originally what I wanted but I am still going to make
a strictly
>> just version of my scale so it would seem to be doubling up.

>Yes Justin. If you're still planning to do a fingerboard directly from
>the rational definition of the scale, then I have failed. I'd really
>like to know where my proposal fell down, so I can do better next
>time. Is it the non-standard open string tuning, or the minimum fret
>spacing, or the errors too large (beating too fast)? Or some
>combination of these?

There was no problem with the scale. In a previous post I said that I actually
enjoyed your scale most of all in my limited listening tests. My main
consideration is that I will be using the strict JI guitar to play along with
smaplers and synthesiser playing in just intonation. For this reason I obviously
want have the same tuning [or as close as I can get] on my guitar. It was never
my intention to take your tuning over mine. I consider the extra difficluty in
construction to be minor point. I was more interested in taking that scale as a
spring board to create something new in a tempered paradigm with all the
attendant benefits of modulation straight frets.

>How many frets or fretlets will you have with the rational fretting?

I haven't worked it out yet. There will be a few I guess. It doesn't bother me
though.

>There are some other options for microtemperament. One has only 1.9 c
>errors but will probably need a non-standard open tuning if it is to
>minimise the number of frets.

>The other will use standard open tuning and only 0.4 c errors but it's
>not likely to reduce the number of frets much below that of the
>rational fretting (if at all).

These would all be good if I was not trying to match up to very accurate synths.
Metasynth is very accurate and my ensonq has resolution of 0.37 cents which is
pretty good too.

I am looking more at stuctural integrity [i.e MOS, tetrachords etc.] as guiding
principles with the tempered guitar. I.e pattern making etc. with errors that
are not too bad.

So Dave don't feel that you have failed. Had I not been so into computer music I
would have jumped at your suggestion in a flash.

Justin White

--- In tuning@y..., "Justin White" <justin.white@d...> wrote:
> There was no problem with the scale. In a previous post I said that
I actually
> enjoyed your scale most of all in my limited listening tests. My
main
> consideration is that I will be using the strict JI guitar to play
along with
> smaplers and synthesiser playing in just intonation. For this reason
I obviously
> want have the same tuning [or as close as I can get] on my guitar.

"or as close as I can get on my guitar". I'll come back to that later.

>It was never
> my intention to take your tuning over mine. I consider the extra
difficluty in
> construction to be minor point. I was more interested in taking that
scale as a
> spring board to create something new in a tempered paradigm with all
the
> attendant benefits of modulation straight frets.

Then one of us is a little confused. You started this thread by
writing:

"I am in fact interested in how Daves developments could be applied to
a CS [periodiciy block ?] that I came up with last weekend."

At the time, the thread was called "microtemperament", and I
understood, "Dave's development" to mean the minimising of frets for
JI guitars by using microtemperaments. i.e. temperaments
indistinguishable from just in normal use.

If you're willing to temper it enough so you can modulate it by fifths
and you don't care how many frets, then certainly use 41 of 7-limit
schismic as Paul suggests. But this has very little to do with "Dave's
developments".

> >How many frets or fretlets will you have with the rational
fretting?
>
> I haven't worked it out yet. There will be a few I guess. It doesn't
bother me
> though.

Will they all be continuous? Smallest spacing? Let me know when you
work it out.

> >There are some other options for microtemperament. One has only 1.9
c
> >errors but will probably need a non-standard open tuning if it is
to
> >minimise the number of frets.
>
> >The other will use standard open tuning and only 0.4 c errors but
it's
> >not likely to reduce the number of frets much below that of the
> >rational fretting (if at all).
>
> These would all be good if I was not trying to match up to very
accurate synths.
> Metasynth is very accurate and my ensonq has resolution of 0.37
cents which is
> pretty good too.

But Justin, even if you fret for the rational scale it would be some
kind of miracle if even half the notes you play are within 3 cents of
the intended tuning! It is ridiculous to think you could get anywhere
near to matching the accuracy of these synths with a guitar, and
completely unnecessary.

-- Dave Keenan

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

> Then one of us is a little confused. You started this thread by
> writing:
>
> "I am in fact interested in how Daves developments could be applied
to
> a CS [periodiciy block ?] that I came up with last weekend."
>
> At the time, the thread was called "microtemperament", and I
> understood, "Dave's development" to mean the minimising of frets
for
> JI guitars by using microtemperaments. i.e. temperaments
> indistinguishable from just in normal use.
>
> If you're willing to temper it enough so you can modulate it by
fifths
> and you don't care how many frets, then certainly use 41 of 7-limit
> schismic as Paul suggests. But this has very little to do
with "Dave's
> developments".

You're wrong about that, Dave. Your thinking and mine have influenced
one another to a great degree, and have been intimately intertwined
to the degree that an outside observer may have difficulty
distinguishing them.

> But Justin, even if you fret for the rational scale it would be
some
> kind of miracle if even half the notes you play are within 3 cents
of
> the intended tuning! It is ridiculous to think you could get
anywhere
> near to matching the accuracy of these synths with a guitar, and
> completely unnecessary.

Actually, you will be able to get whatever accuracy your ear desires,
by pressing the string a little bit toward the bridge to flatten, and
toward the nut (or perpendicularly) to sharpen. This will be true
whether your guitar is fretted for "JI" or for a slight temperament.