Hey J Gill

I note that you did not reply directly to any of the five posts,
numbered 32378 - 32382, from early this morning. Did you miss them?

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> I note that you did not reply directly to any of the five posts,
> numbered 32378 - 32382, from early this morning. Did you miss them?

Paul,

In the midst of our "rat-tat-tat", my girlfriend came by
to spend some time, and wanted me to watch "Analyze This"
with her, so I wasn't able (at the time) to "analyze that"!

Message #32385 responded to elements of your #32379.
I have not (but will) read Terhardt's "specpitch" and
"strikenote" webpages. The Terhardt quote in #32380:

<< Jeremy, do you have any problem with the following statement by
Terhardt:

'The affinity of tones has two main aspects. Firstly, there appears
to exist an auditory "sense" for these two particular intervals.
Experimental verification of that sense can be accomplished by
presenting successive tone pairs to a listener and ask him to adjust
one of the tone frequencies such that the tones are in an octave- or
fifth-relationship, respectively. This is briefly termed octave- and
fifth-matching of tones, respectively. As it turns out, most
listeners are able to do this, and the result, on the average, is a
frequency ratio which is close to 1:2 and 2:3, respectively. Octave-
and fifth-matching can be done with practically any type of tone, in
particular, both with harmonic complex tones and with sine tones.' >>

Terhardt's language seems understandable in the quote above.

Regards, J Gill