Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning More "Jerries"

On 2/21/02 2:20 PM, "Gerald Eskelin" <stg3music@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 2/21/02 1:39 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>> Message: 18
>> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:27:53 -0000
>> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
>> Subject: more "Jerries"
>>>
>> ***So, Jerry, did you listen to Paul's "Jerries??" And, which one
>> did you like the best??
>>
>> Joe
>
> As you may have noticed "above," Joe, I'm still trying to get access. Will do
> tomorrow (Friday).
>
> Jerry

I got my prep done for tonight's rehearsal sooner than I "budgeted" so
joined tuning2 and gave a listen.

As did Joeseph, I immediately liked jerry0. None of the others made it.
While 6 and 7 were somewhat in the neighborhood, only jerry0 sounded
"locked" to me in the sense that I experience it with singers. And I agree
with Joe also that the third *is* higher than JI.

So what gives, Paul? Have we discovered the illusive "high third" after all?
Or is it still in the smoke and mirrors category?

Gerald "Smiley" Eskelin

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

> I got my prep done for tonight's rehearsal sooner than I "budgeted"
so
> joined tuning2 and gave a listen.
>
> As did Joeseph, I immediately liked jerry0. None of the others made
it.
> While 6 and 7 were somewhat in the neighborhood, only jerry0 sounded
> "locked" to me in the sense that I experience it with singers. And
I agree
> with Joe also that the third *is* higher than JI.
>
> So what gives, Paul? Have we discovered the illusive "high third"
after all?
> Or is it still in the smoke and mirrors category?
>
> Gerald "Smiley" Eskelin

can i ask you to talk about the others? do their thirds sound too
high? too low? which ones? can you compare them with one another?

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 2/21/02 5:43 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:13:11 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: More "Jerries"
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> I got my prep done for tonight's rehearsal sooner than I "budgeted"
> so
>> joined tuning2 and gave a listen.
>>
>> As did Joeseph, I immediately liked jerry0. None of the others made
> it.
>> While 6 and 7 were somewhat in the neighborhood, only jerry0 sounded
>> "locked" to me in the sense that I experience it with singers. And
> I agree
>> with Joe also that the third *is* higher than JI.
>>
>> So what gives, Paul? Have we discovered the illusive "high third"
> after all?
>> Or is it still in the smoke and mirrors category?
>>
>> Gerald "Smiley" Eskelin
>
> can i ask you to talk about the others? do their thirds sound too
> high? too low? which ones? can you compare them with one another?

Here's my "progress" report.

In contrast to my quick earlier response (above), I now suspect that Jerry0
is JI. I can hear the low combination tone rumble with all of them,
suggesting that the fifth is "right on." However, the rumble is clearest
with Jerry0, suggesting that it, too, is JI. If it isn't, I'll be *very*
surprised.

My next "method" was to sing "my third" into the example while it is
sounding, then stop singing and see if the sounding third is higher or lower
than mine. This was hard to hear and my impression kept changing from one
pass to another on the same item. Overall, my impression was generally that
the example third was higher than the one I had sung; but I usually wasn't
sure because it sounded different when I just played it and didn't sing.

Then I just listened to them quickly one after another, trying to see which
ones would be most "acceptable" if sung by my singers. 4 and 7 sound pretty
good to me. I wouldn't stop the rehearsal for them. 5 and 6 are less good.
1, 2 and 3 would make me stop and ask the singers to "try it again, this
time with their ears open."

Finally, I sang "my third" before playing the item (by memory of where the
root and fifth were after multi playings), and then played the item to see
how close each third was to my anticipation of where it "should" be. Again,
4 and 7 were the clear winners.

So, Paul, don't give the details quite yet. Let me try again over the
weekend and see if I get similar results. I'll do my best to be specific
about "higher," "lower" and "how much."

Thanks a bunch for doing this. It'll be interesting to see what the numbers
are.

If you still have the energy, interest and time, you might consider redoing
the items with the root and fifth sounding alone for about three seconds (so
I can establish my "well-tuned" third), then add the third for about five
seconds, then drop out the root and fifth so I can see where the third is
sounding in relation to "my" third. Whaddaya think?

Another option would be to supply the root and fifth *below* the third
(where it would fall in the partial series 2/3/5). I find it's much easier
to hear and tune in that configuration.

Jerry

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

> So, Paul, don't give the details quite yet. Let me try again over
the
> weekend and see if I get similar results. I'll do my best to be
specific
> about "higher," "lower" and "how much."

ok . . . maybe we should continue this off-list. e-mail me.

ok -- i'll try this next week . . .

> Another option would be to supply the root and fifth *below* the
third
> (where it would fall in the partial series 2/3/5). I find it's much
easier
> to hear and tune in that configuration.

i could do this too . . .

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_34628.html#34726

> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > So, Paul, don't give the details quite yet. Let me try again over
> the
> > weekend and see if I get similar results. I'll do my best to be
> specific
> > about "higher," "lower" and "how much."
>
> ok . . . maybe we should continue this off-list. e-mail me.
>

****Whyzzat? I thought this was of *general interest* since several
of us have been listening to these "Jerries??"

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

> If you still have the energy, interest and time, you might consider
redoing
> the items with the root and fifth sounding alone for about three
seconds (so
> I can establish my "well-tuned" third), then add the third for
about five
> seconds, then drop out the root and fifth so I can see where the
third is
> sounding in relation to "my" third. Whaddaya think?
>
> Another option would be to supply the root and fifth *below* the
third
> (where it would fall in the partial series 2/3/5). I find it's much
easier
> to hear and tune in that configuration.

i did both:

/tuning-math/files/Paul/sounds/

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

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

/tuning/topicId_34628.html#35119

> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > If you still have the energy, interest and time, you might
consider
> redoing
> > the items with the root and fifth sounding alone for about three
> seconds (so
> > I can establish my "well-tuned" third), then add the third for
> about five
> > seconds, then drop out the root and fifth so I can see where the
> third is
> > sounding in relation to "my" third. Whaddaya think?
> >
> > Another option would be to supply the root and fifth *below* the
> third
> > (where it would fall in the partial series 2/3/5). I find it's
much
> easier
> > to hear and tune in that configuration.
>
> i did both:
>
> /tuning-math/files/Paul/sounds/

***I'm not getting this.

This sounds like a *minor* third followed by a *major* sixth to me.

Is there something wrong with my hearing?

Also, all but the very first sound the same to me. Even the rapidity
of beating sounds the same. They must vary by only a very, very few
cents...

I think I want to go back to 17 being the smallest "deliminator..."