what's mathew rosenblum's scale??

http://www.mindspring.com/~tmook/mrmain.html

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:12 AM
> Subject: [tuning] what's mathew rosenblum's scale??
>
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~tmook/mrmain.html

hmmm ... i met Rosenblum in Philly a couple of years ago,
then a little while later he emailed me asking some
questions about ratio-->cents conversion.

he mentioned some stuff to me about his use of microtonality,
and i sure wish i could remember it or find the email ...

-monz

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

hi monz, i see you're with us . . .

well, still staring at my favorite page on the internet,

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm

wonder if gene, dave, and i had convinced you yet on the 'just barely
diesic' bit . . .

also, noticed this:

>Woolhouse's choice is interesting, because while he stated, in
>seeking an integer logarithmic interval measurement, that
>730edo "differs less than any other from the true series [i.e., the
>just ratios], unless we ascend to very high numbers; and is the one
>which is therefore most to be recommended", it can be seen from
>these diagrams that 612edo actually gives better overall accuracy in
>the 5-limit.

this is not the case. 612 gives better *relative* accuracy, but 730
gives better *absolute* accuracy, which is what woolhouse meant.

>But the pattern of zero error in 730edo resembles the general
>pattern of 50edo (and to a lesser extent, 19edo) -- which
>approximates his "optimal" 7/26-comma meantone -- whereas the
>pattern of 612edo does not. The conclusion this suggests to me is
>that Woolhouse chose 730edo over 612edo for this reason.

i'm afraid you're stumbling on a mere coincidence -- the choice of
730-equal does not incorporate the major assumption behind his
ultimate choice of 50-equal.

as for this:

'It's my belief that the vectors of these intervals play a role in
the patterns of shading and coloring in the gallery of lattices
below. '

well, if you did the et 'lattices' the right (james mccartney) way,
you'd see that the very set of vectors that vanishes for a given et
shows actual unisons in the et 'lattices'. for example, the
pythagorean comma is (12,0) and it vanishes in 72, and you'd see any
pair of pitches in the 'lattice' that is separated by the vector
(12,0) is a 'two of a kind'.

also, in the table you have '648:625' marked as '--', though in the
graph above, you already labeled it as 'octatonic' . . . btw, did you
not agree with carl and me about using 'diminished' for this
and 'augmented' for diesic?

finally, the [8 14 -13] system was named 'parakleismic' by gene in
december, and a line or at least an entry for his [9 -13 -2] 'acute
minor third system' (optimal generator 339.5 cents) belongs here --
it passes through 60, 53, 99, 46, and 39 on your graph.

thanks in advance,
paul