Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning New jerries

It was very unfortunate that the "crash" came just as I had posted the
report of my enlightenment. It was very disappointing not to have had a few
celebratory responses. Paul's work on this is *cutting edge* important, I
think.

In order to reconnect (and to save interested readers the time to find it),
I'll paste my "moment of truth" post from last week:

---------------
HOLY B'GEEEESUS!!!!!!

Paul, as you likely remember, I initially agreed with Joe that the third
sounded "high" on jerry0, and then later changed my mind and thought it to
be JI (I guess because it sounded so "good").

So, when I first played it in this new format, I sang a JI third into the
open fifth. When the recorded third came in, I fell off my chair!!!! It was
*way* higher than 4:5. So, then I sang "my" high third into the open fifth
and when the recorded third came in we had a tonal love affair!

The third in jerry0 might still be a smidge low, but then that may be due to
the adrenaline pumping through the sheer excitement of finding a synthesized
major chord with human ears. WOW!

I'll go back and spend some time with the others and offer my "evaluations."
It'll really be easy with the new format. Thanks for your efforts. I can't
wait to find out what you did to prepare these examples.

I think I'll go pour me a stiff one. Cheers!!!!!!!

Jerry
------------------

Since then, I have spent some time with Paul's examples to see whether I
hear the same things two days in a row. I now do, so here are my
impressions:

jerry0 - This is *very* good. Since "acoustic" tuning is a matter of seeking
the "best" adjustment, I'd like to hear the third just a smidge higher and
see whether it improves. Believe me, I'd settle for whatever this is if sung
by my group. Just curious to see whether improvement is possible here.

jerry1 - Quite sharp.

jerry2 - a little sharp.

jerry3 - also sharp.

jerry4 - very close, but on the flat side.

jerry5 - also close, but flat.

jerry6 - sharp.

jerry7 - slightly sharp.

In working with these examples, I experienced what I believe my students
encounter when seeking "best" intervals in simple JI; namely, that it's not
difficult to recognize a well-tuned example, but it's sometimes difficult to
decide whether an out-of-tune example is a bit sharp or flat. That's why I
hesitated to respond to the first jerries. I sometimes simply couldn't tell.

The new format made that considerably easier. Once establishing vocally the
"in tune" third above the open fifth, I could hear (feel) the beating of an
out-of-tune third when it entered. More importantly, it gave me a chance to
see if it rang higher or lower when I stopped singing. (Paul's choice of key
was a bit unfortunate, since it put the third into a wobbly part of my
falsetto range; but with a little practice, I got it to hold fairly steady.)

At first, I changed my mind a few times (perhaps due to my wobbly falsetto),
but now I'm pretty sure that I'm hearing them accurately. I'd love to know
what others have experienced in this regard.

Well, Paul. Where are we? Did you discover the "high third" by chance or by
numbers? The world awaits!!! (Drum roll, please.)

Jerry

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

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

> In order to reconnect (and to save interested readers the time to
find it),
> I'll paste my "moment of truth" post from last week:
>
> ---------------
> HOLY B'GEEEESUS!!!!!!
>
> Paul, as you likely remember, I initially agreed with Joe that the
third
> sounded "high" on jerry0, and then later changed my mind and
thought it to
> be JI (I guess because it sounded so "good").
>
> So, when I first played it in this new format, I sang a JI third
into the
> open fifth. When the recorded third came in, I fell off my
chair!!!! It was
> *way* higher than 4:5. So, then I sang "my" high third into the
open fifth
> and when the recorded third came in we had a tonal love affair!
>
> The third in jerry0 might still be a smidge low, but then that may
be due to
> the adrenaline pumping through the sheer excitement of finding a
synthesized
> major chord with human ears. WOW!
>
> I'll go back and spend some time with the others and offer
my "evaluations."
> It'll really be easy with the new format. Thanks for your efforts.
I can't
> wait to find out what you did to prepare these examples.
>
> I think I'll go pour me a stiff one. Cheers!!!!!!!
>
> Jerry
> ------------------
>
> Since then, I have spent some time with Paul's examples to see
whether I
> hear the same things two days in a row. I now do, so here are my
> impressions:
>
> jerry0 - This is *very* good. Since "acoustic" tuning is a matter
of seeking
> the "best" adjustment, I'd like to hear the third just a smidge
higher and
> see whether it improves. Believe me, I'd settle for whatever this
is if sung
> by my group. Just curious to see whether improvement is possible
here.
>
> jerry1 - Quite sharp.
>
> jerry2 - a little sharp.
>
> jerry3 - also sharp.
>
> jerry4 - very close, but on the flat side.

flatter than jerry0?

> jerry5 - also close, but flat.

ditto.

> jerry6 - sharp.
>
> jerry7 - slightly sharp.
>
> In working with these examples, I experienced what I believe my
students
> encounter when seeking "best" intervals in simple JI; namely, that
it's not
> difficult to recognize a well-tuned example, but it's sometimes
difficult to
> decide whether an out-of-tune example is a bit sharp or flat.
That's why I
> hesitated to respond to the first jerries. I sometimes simply
couldn't tell.
>
> The new format made that considerably easier. Once establishing
vocally the
> "in tune" third above the open fifth, I could hear (feel) the
beating of an
> out-of-tune third when it entered. More importantly, it gave me a
chance to
> see if it rang higher or lower when I stopped singing. (Paul's
choice of key
> was a bit unfortunate, since it put the third into a wobbly part of
my
> falsetto range; but with a little practice, I got it to hold fairly
steady.)
>
> At first, I changed my mind a few times (perhaps due to my wobbly
falsetto),
> but now I'm pretty sure that I'm hearing them accurately.

could you indulge be and try it *one more time* -- trying to be sure
your mind doesn't change in successive attempts -- and answering the
two questions i asked above? please do your best to commit to a
*final answer*. if you could try to guess some approximate cent
values that would be better as far as clarifying your text here.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

Hi, Paul. So I'm finished with the "Jerries". I deliberately avoided
looking at more than I had to in order to find the files. I didn't
read anything that gives away what I was going to hear. I did happen
to read some things on the way that others think they heard that have
nothing to do with what I heard.

I am, I suppose from past interaction on the list, of the apparently
controversial opinion that substantial tuning experience, including
simply playing a violin or singing with the objective of achieving
just harmonies, "objectifies" the tuner's ear so that it is less
subject to "aural illusions".

My personal subjective perceptions are as follows:

The timbres for all tones in all cases seem identical, namely a
complex timbre closely resembling a saw-tooth or siren-like timbre.
It seems to me a timbre with 100% harmonicity.

The pitches for the root and fifth of the triad which sound first
remain constant for all "Jerries". This initial open perfect fifth is
justly tuned in every case. Also in every case, the third pitch
introduced above it after sounding the root and fifth for a short
while is a tenth above the root, so the three tones are mutually
disposed in the same way they would be in the natural harmonic
series, generating an open-voiced major triad. In every case, 00-07,
the open fifth drops out toward the end and the tenth is left alone.

Jerry 00:
This is absolutely just, beatless tuning. There is an apparent
slight drop in pitch when the root and fifth drop out, but when the
attention is focused on the tenth, it becomes clear there is no real
drop in pitch. This is the aural equivalent of an optical illusion,
with which any experienced tuner who has worked with complex timbres,
especially synthesizer timbres, should be familiar. Singing an octave
below the tenth to fill in the missing third, then tuning
deliberately and precisely to the tenth confirms that the drop is
only apparent and not objectively present in terms of either a
frequency or timbre change to reinforce the illusion of pitch change.

Jerries 01 - 07:
The only change from Jerry 00 is that the tenth is somewhat sharp in
all subsequent "Jerries". It appears initially to be rather bitterly
sharp, but this first impression is a result of the complexity of the
highly harmonic timbre and the purity of the fundamentals generating
the timbre, so the beating, although only 3-4 times per second, is
quite marked. The beat rate indicates to an experienced tuner that
these tenths are less sharp than in standard 12t-ET tuning.

I would guess that the errors are very close to 10 cents as opposed
to 13.7 cents for ET. They are clearly sharp in every case, 01-07,
and the beat rate and subjective pitch deviation are not detectably
different to my ear. I would guess that none are above 10 cents sharp
by more than a hair, and would guess on the low side for error in
judgment. Let's say they are all between 8 and 11 cents sharp. My
pitch memory from one example to another is not good enough to detect
a three cent variation from example to example.

The apparent pitch drop is not real in any of the cases. The sharp
tenths remain sharp and to my ear, do not vary noticeably, either
from the pitch as it sounded simultaneously with the open fifth,
nor from one example to another (01-07).

So that's it, Paul. I await your feedback after we all finish playing
with this.

Thanks! That was fun.

Cheers,

Bob

P.S. In my desire to avoid prejudicing my perceptions, I never saw
what the two questions you wanted answered were. I hope my
descriptions were exhaustive enough to have answered them anyway. At
least I can't think of anything else significant to add to what I've
said about these.
--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > could you indulge be and try it *one more time* -- trying to be
> sure
> > > your mind doesn't change in successive attempts -- and
> answering the
> > > two questions i asked above?
> >
> > I'd like to try it, but where are they?
>
> in tuning-math, in the files folder.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 3/18/02 6:10 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:52:56 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: New jerries
>
> Hi, Paul. So I'm finished with the "Jerries". I deliberately avoided
> looking at more than I had to in order to find the files. I didn't
> read anything that gives away what I was going to hear. I did happen
> to read some things on the way that others think they heard that have
> nothing to do with what I heard.

I'm very pleased, Bob, that you are taking the time to offer your responses.
It's very good that you did your listening without influence from current
posts. Now that you have "weighed in," you may want to check out the more
recent conversations on the thread "Jerries: a conclusion or two."
>
> I am, I suppose from past interaction on the list, of the apparently
> controversial opinion that substantial tuning experience, including
> simply playing a violin or singing with the objective of achieving
> just harmonies, "objectifies" the tuner's ear so that it is less
> subject to "aural illusions".

I'm not sure what this means, perhaps due to my absence during your
"interaction." However, at this point, the topic of "aural illusions" is
very much in consideration.
>
>
> My personal subjective perceptions are as follows:
>
> The timbres for all tones in all cases seem identical, namely a
> complex timbre closely resembling a saw-tooth or siren-like timbre.
> It seems to me a timbre with 100% harmonicity.
>
> The pitches for the root and fifth of the triad which sound first
> remain constant for all "Jerries". This initial open perfect fifth is
> justly tuned in every case. Also in every case, the third pitch
> introduced above it after sounding the root and fifth for a short
> while is a tenth above the root, so the three tones are mutually
> disposed in the same way they would be in the natural harmonic
> series, generating an open-voiced major triad. In every case, 00-07,
> the open fifth drops out toward the end and the tenth is left alone.
>
>
> Jerry 00:
> This is absolutely just, beatless tuning. There is an apparent
> slight drop in pitch when the root and fifth drop out, but when the
> attention is focused on the tenth, it becomes clear there is no real
> drop in pitch. This is the aural equivalent of an optical illusion,
> with which any experienced tuner who has worked with complex timbres,
> especially synthesizer timbres, should be familiar.

Exactly. The question here is: does this "aural illusion" constitute the
experiential data that "teaches" singers and string players to "prefer" a
high third? Your impression that the third apparently drops slightly when
the root and third drop out indicates that we likely hear the same thing in
this regard. The difference between the "illusionary" high third and the
"real" JI one is what we are seeking.

> Singing an octave
> below the tenth to fill in the missing third, then tuning
> deliberately and precisely to the tenth confirms that the drop is
> only apparent and not objectively present in terms of either a
> frequency or timbre change to reinforce the illusion of pitch change.

I verified this same characteristic by singing first a JI third into the
open fifth and then singing a "high third" (based on my decades of having
dealt with it) into the open fifth. In the first case, my vocal third was
perfectly in tune with the sounding JI third. In the second case, my third
was "in tune" during the sounding of the chord and quite dissonant to the JI
third after the root and third dropped out.
>
> Jerries 01 - 07:
> The only change from Jerry 00 is that the tenth is somewhat sharp in
> all subsequent "Jerries". It appears initially to be rather bitterly
> sharp, but this first impression is a result of the complexity of the
> highly harmonic timbre and the purity of the fundamentals generating
> the timbre, so the beating, although only 3-4 times per second, is
> quite marked. The beat rate indicates to an experienced tuner that
> these tenths are less sharp than in standard 12t-ET tuning.

You will find, when you catch up on the conversation, that all of the 01-07
jerries are well above the 12t-ET major third.
>
> I would guess that the errors are very close to 10 cents as opposed
> to 13.7 cents for ET. They are clearly sharp in every case, 01-07,
> and the beat rate and subjective pitch deviation are not detectably
> different to my ear. I would guess that none are above 10 cents sharp
> by more than a hair, and would guess on the low side for error in
> judgment. Let's say they are all between 8 and 11 cents sharp. My
> pitch memory from one example to another is not good enough to detect
> a three cent variation from example to example.

Nor is mine, when comparing melodically (in series). Yet, I and a few of the
folks who wandered through my office during this experiment were able to
agree (independently) that jerry07 and perhaps 04 and 05 were "better" than
the others, suggesting that not only are these jerries different, but that
there is a "better" high third. We're still trying to fine tune that
"preferred" high third.
>
> The apparent pitch drop is not real in any of the cases. The sharp
> tenths remain sharp and to my ear, do not vary noticeably, either
> from the pitch as it sounded simultaneously with the open fifth,
> nor from one example to another (01-07).

I'd be interested to know whether you hear a "pitch drop" in 01-07 when the
root and fifth drops out. My reason for asking is that I believe the
"illusion" only appears when the JI triad is sounded "in tune." The other
jerries are not "in tune" in that sense, so to my ear there was no drop in
pitch of the "naked" third. Check it out again, please.
>
> So that's it, Paul. I await your feedback after we all finish playing
> with this.
>
> Thanks! That was fun.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob
>
> P.S. In my desire to avoid prejudicing my perceptions, I never saw
> what the two questions you wanted answered were. I hope my
> descriptions were exhaustive enough to have answered them anyway. At
> least I can't think of anything else significant to add to what I've
> said about these.

The "two questions" were in regard to my vague initial descriptions. As I
remember, Paul had asked for responses in "cents." I found this difficult to
do, particularly since I suspected they were actually less than a cent
different. As it turned out, they are (almost).

Bob, I sincerely hope you will find the time to continue to be involved in
this project. As a choral director, you already have aural experience with
"high third" preferences as well as the potential to benefit from any
insights we might experience.

Jerry

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/18/02 6:10 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>

> Bob, I sincerely hope you will find the time to continue to be
involved in
> this project. As a choral director, you already have aural
experience with
> "high third" preferences as well as the potential to benefit from
any
> insights we might experience.
>
> Jerry

Bob now:
Thanks for your kind words, Jerry. I wish I had more time, but these
interactions are quite time-consuming and I'm very busy these days.

Bob earlier:
Singing an octave
> > below the tenth to fill in the missing third, then tuning
> > deliberately and precisely to the tenth confirms that the drop is
> > only apparent and not objectively present in terms of either a
> > frequency or timbre change to reinforce the illusion of pitch
change.

Gerald replied:
> I verified this same characteristic by singing first a JI third
into the
> open fifth and then singing a "high third" (based on my decades of
having
> dealt with it) into the open fifth. In the first case, my vocal
third was
> perfectly in tune with the sounding JI third. In the second case,
my third
> was "in tune" during the sounding of the chord and quite dissonant
to the JI
> third after the root and third dropped out.
> >
Bob now:
But we don't seem to saying the same thing, here. I sang a just third
into Jerry00 and noticed that the pitch did not vary. My vibratoless
voice was rock steady and the unison was beatless after the chord
dropped out on Jerry00. If I sang a "high third", it would not sound
in tune with either the chord OR the lone tone afterwards.

On the others, I did *NOT* tune to the chord, but to the sharp third,
and likewise the unison was beatless when the other chord members
dropped away. I did *NOT* hear my voice as in tune with the chord in
any of the examples after Jerry00. I deliberately mistuned it to
match the sharp third and held rock steady on pitch, and there were
no beats when the root and fifth dropped out.

It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could think they were
in tune with the third in any of the examples after Jerry00 and
simultaneously hear themselves as in tune with the chord. This is not
possible for my ear. The thirds are all high after Jerry00; even
higher than I thought, so how could anyone perceive that they are in
tune with those high thirds and in tune with the chord at the same
time? My choir does *NOT* sing "high thirds". They spontaneously go
for the just thirds on sustained chords, and when they have practiced
sufficiently, on all of them, especially in renaissance music.

So I don't have any experience with the "high" third and fail to
perceive what this refers to in the Jerry00. Jerry00 sounds perfectly
fine to my ear with the deep, rich, satisfying fullness and
perfection I expect in a justly tuned triad. I do NOT perceive this
tuning as boring in the least, as I noticed in a snippet of someone's
statements on the way to finding the files' location! I just notice
that there is a tendency to hear it as low when left stranded alone.
I have become used to this phenomenon melodically and have learned to
hear the pitch I need so that when the "other players or singers"
(the root and fifth) come back in, I will be in tune with them (on a
just third).

Bob earlier:
> > Jerries 01 - 07:
> > The only change from Jerry 00 is that the tenth is somewhat sharp
in
> > all subsequent "Jerries". It appears initially to be rather
bitterly
> > sharp, but this first impression is a result of the complexity of
the
> > highly harmonic timbre and the purity of the fundamentals
generating
> > the timbre, so the beating, although only 3-4 times per second, is
> > quite marked. The beat rate indicates to an experienced tuner that
> > these tenths are less sharp than in standard 12t-ET tuning.
>
Gerald replied:
> You will find, when you catch up on the conversation, that all of
the 01-07
> jerries are well above the 12t-ET major third.

Bob now:
Well, I've got a little egg on my face concerning the pitches and the
deviation. I misperceived the third as a tenth above the root. It
seems there is something about the timbre that deceived my ear
concerning the pitch's octave, or I just woke up on the wrong side of
the bed. It is, rather, just a plain third in the middle of the open
fifth. This explains why it sounded so bitterly sharp to me
considering the slow beat rate.

Bob earlier:
> > I would guess that the errors are very close to 10 cents as
opposed
> > to 13.7 cents for ET. They are clearly sharp in every case, 01-07,
> > and the beat rate and subjective pitch deviation are not
detectably
> > different to my ear. I would guess that none are above 10 cents
sharp
> > by more than a hair, and would guess on the low side for error in
> > judgment. Let's say they are all between 8 and 11 cents sharp. My
> > pitch memory from one example to another is not good enough to
detect
> > a three cent variation from example to example.
>

Bob now:
That beat rate for a pitch an octave lower than I thought I heard
would correspond to exactly double the deviation in cents I had
estimated. I thought it was likely less than 10 cents, but this would
put it at just under 20, say 17 or 18 cents or so. (I still haven't
read anything but my own posts and a few short snippets of others'
posts on the way to finding the files' location. I assume we're all
listening to the ones in Paul Erlich's folder on the tuning math
list.)

Bob earlier:
> > I am, I suppose from past interaction on the list, of the
apparently
> > controversial opinion that substantial tuning experience,
including
> > simply playing a violin or singing with the objective of achieving
> > just harmonies, "objectifies" the tuner's ear so that it is less
> > subject to "aural illusions".

Gerald replied:
> I'm not sure what this means, perhaps due to my absence during your
> "interaction." However, at this point, the topic of "aural
illusions" is
> very much in consideration.
> >
Bob now:
There has been no past interaction from me on the Jerries. This was
my first post here in awhile. I just mean what I've already implied
in my above responses to your replies. In Jerry00 I do not hear
any "high third" while the chord is sounding. When it stops and
leaves the third alone, I do detect a subjective tendency to hear the
pitch as having dropped somewhat, but I am not fooled by that, having
had many years experience dealing with it. When I put my "objective
hat" on and listen intently, I do not hear any pitch shift on Jerry00.

On all the others, the third actually *IS* high, and I assume this is
not what you mean by the (illusory?) "high third" you seem to be
referring to here. It is a real high third in every case; higher than
I thought. I don't hear any significant variation either in terms of
pitch deviation or beat rate in any of the examples after Jerry00.

If finding which one of them after Jerry00 is the "best" tuning is
the objective here, I must admit I do not understand that at all. I
think they all sound lousy and out of tune. I do notice roughly the
same subjective tendency to hear them as dropping in pitch as in
Jerry00 when the other members of the chord drop out, but again, I'm
not fooled by that.

I believe they all stay constant in pitch throughout the example,
although the amount of the drop seems to vary somewhat for me from
example to example. However, when I go back to listen again, the
variations I thought I heard are not reliably replicated, so I'm not
sure there is any consistent pattern to my subjective impressions in
this regard. I suspect that the variations are subjective also, and
in any case, they are slight whether "real" or "imagined".

I don't know what else to say. There is nothing interesting to hear
for me after Jerry01. To me, they all sound essentially the same
(i.e., badly sharp by roughly the same degree if not exactly). This
will probably help a lot of people understand better where I've been
coming from on some of my previous posts going way back to August of
last year when I first logged in here.

Respectfully,

Bob

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

🔗robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

I'm here for now. I've been following this with interest, but that
interest is starting to flag both because of limited time and since
neither do I have clue as to how Jerry's experiences can be. See my
answer at the bottom of this post.

Cheers,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> > On 3/18/02 6:10 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > > Jerry 00:
> > > This is absolutely just, beatless tuning. There is an apparent
> > > slight drop in pitch when the root and fifth drop out, but when
> the
> > > attention is focused on the tenth, it becomes clear there is no
> real
> > > drop in pitch. This is the aural equivalent of an optical
> illusion,
> > > with which any experienced tuner who has worked with complex
> timbres,
> > > especially synthesizer timbres, should be familiar.
> >
> > Exactly. The question here is: does this "aural illusion"
> constitute the
> > experiential data that "teaches" singers and string players
> to "prefer" a
> > high third?
>
> no -- rather, i believe bob is referring to the same
psychoacoustical
> phenomenon i was pointing to in my reply to 'alternativetuning'.
>
> > Yet, I and a few of the
> > folks who wandered through my office during this experiment were
> able to
> > agree (independently) that jerry07 and perhaps 04 and 05
> were "better" than
> > the others, suggesting that not only are these jerries different,
> but that
> > there is a "better" high third. We're still trying to fine tune
that
> > "preferred" high third.
>
> something seems wrong with this premise. jerry01 was *between*
> jerry04 and jerry07, and jerry05 was the *second highest* one. so
it
> can't really be a matter of 'fine tuning', can it?
> >
> > I'd be interested to know whether you hear a "pitch drop" in 01-
07
> when the
> > root and fifth drops out. My reason for asking is that I believe
the
> > "illusion" only appears when the JI triad is sounded "in tune."
The
> other
> > jerries are not "in tune" in that sense, so to my ear there was
no
> drop in
> > pitch of the "naked" third. Check it out again, please.
>
> i'll forward this to bob, as i'm not sure he's following along
these
> days.

Bob:
I hear a subject drop in pitch for all cases with casual listening,
but not with close attention to the third throughout. I must say that
the drop seems most apparent in Jerry00, although it does not
disappear for me in the other Jerries. I tend to suspect that this
fuzziness in perceiving the drop in the sharp thirds is that there is
a less clearly defined reference point inherent in these mistuned
pitches. The justly tuned third serves as a very solid subjective
reference point for me. The others get fuzzy. Again, I detected no
significant variation in the degree of sharpness in Jerries 01-07.

🔗Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@earthlink.net>

On 3/19/02 1:26 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:28:39 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: New jerries
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>> On 3/18/02 6:10 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>>
>
>> Bob, I sincerely hope you will find the time to continue to be involved in
>> this project. As a choral director, you already have aural experience with
>> "high third" preferences as well as the potential to benefit from any
>> insights we might experience.
>>
>> Jerry
>
>
> Bob now:
> Thanks for your kind words, Jerry. I wish I had more time, but these
> interactions are quite time-consuming and I'm very busy these days.
>
Thanks for taking *this* time. Your input here is important, I feel.
>
> Bob earlier:
>>> Singing an octave
>>> below the tenth to fill in the missing third, then tuning
>>> deliberately and precisely to the tenth confirms that the drop is
>>> only apparent and not objectively present in terms of either a
>>> frequency or timbre change to reinforce the illusion of pitch
>>> change.
>
> Gerald replied:
>> I verified this same characteristic by singing first a JI third into the
>> open fifth and then singing a "high third" (based on my decades of having
>> dealt with it) into the open fifth. In the first case, my vocal third was
>> perfectly in tune with the sounding JI third. In the second case, my third
>> was "in tune" during the sounding of the chord and quite dissonant to the JI
>> third after the root and third dropped out.

> Bob now:
> But we don't seem to saying the same thing, here. I sang a just third
> into Jerry00 and noticed that the pitch did not vary. My vibratoless
> voice was rock steady and the unison was beatless after the chord
> dropped out on Jerry00. If I sang a "high third", it would not sound
> in tune with either the chord OR the lone tone afterwards.
>
> On the others, I did *NOT* tune to the chord, but to the sharp third,
> and likewise the unison was beatless when the other chord members
> dropped away. I did *NOT* hear my voice as in tune with the chord in
> any of the examples after Jerry00. I deliberately mistuned it to
> match the sharp third and held rock steady on pitch, and there were
> no beats when the root and fifth dropped out.

I'm curious as to whether you had any impression of a change in pitch (or
anything else) with these "high-third" jerries similar to what you
experienced the first time you played jerry00? I didn't hear any.
Presumably, (since you didn't mention it) you didn't either.
>
> It's difficult for me to understand how anyone could think they were
> in tune with the third in any of the examples after Jerry00 and
> simultaneously hear themselves as in tune with the chord. This is not
> possible for my ear. The thirds are all high after Jerry00; even
> higher than I thought, so how could anyone perceive that they are in
> tune with those high thirds and in tune with the chord at the same
> time? My choir does *NOT* sing "high thirds". They spontaneously go
> for the just thirds on sustained chords, and when they have practiced
> sufficiently, on all of them, especially in renaissance music.

Last year, during the time I was discussing this topic on the list, I ran
into a list member at the American Choral Directors Association convention.
Having observed the exchange on list, he offered that he "prefers" the JI
third and urges his choir to sing it. We agreed to make somewhat of a
"sport" of listening for high and JI thirds performed by the dozens of
choirs we would hear over the next few days.

I asked him to predict which third would win the talley; and he thought the
high third would. (So, evidently he was confident that he could tell the
difference.) We agreed later that he was right. We both said we heard many
more high thirds than JI ones.

A few months later, I listened to a recording of his choir and noted a
plentiful scattering of high thirds. I thought at the time that perhaps some
of those simply "got past" him.

Now, after hearing Paul's jerry00 as a "high" third, I suspect that we may
have been hearing JI thirds and perceiving them as "high" thirds, just as I
did here. Perhaps we both had been fooled by the "illusion" of a high third
while hearing a JI one.

I could probably leave it there and go one with my life, except that I and
many other singers consciously and intentionally sing thirds higher than ET.
To my ear, there is a "right" place to tune such a third. Upon singing "my"
high third into the JI jerry, I found I could tune it to sound "consonant"
(but not beatless). Of course, when the root and fifth dropped out it
sounded very dissonant to the sustaining JI third.
>
> So I don't have any experience with the "high" third and fail to
> perceive what this refers to in the Jerry00. Jerry00 sounds perfectly
> fine to my ear with the deep, rich, satisfying fullness and
> perfection I expect in a justly tuned triad. I do NOT perceive this
> tuning as boring in the least, as I noticed in a snippet of someone's
> statements on the way to finding the files' location!

Nor do I. The serene JI third is fully in keeping with 16th century
polyphony. I simply seem to hear it as "higher then ET" instead of "lower
than ET."

> I just notice
> that there is a tendency to hear it as low when left stranded alone.

Is this comment in reference to the format of jerry00? If so, you may not
want to go on record as "not hearing" the high third. Otherwise, why would
you experience the naked third as different as opposed to when it was
wrapped in a perfect fifth?

> I have become used to this phenomenon melodically and have learned to
> hear the pitch I need so that when the "other players or singers"
> (the root and fifth) come back in, I will be in tune with them (on a
> just third).

Makes sense to me.
>
> Bob earlier:
>>> Jerries 01 - 07:
>>> The only change from Jerry 00 is that the tenth is somewhat sharp in
>>> all subsequent "Jerries". It appears initially to be rather bitterly
>>> sharp, but this first impression is a result of the complexity of the
>>> highly harmonic timbre and the purity of the fundamentals generating
>>> the timbre, so the beating, although only 3-4 times per second, is
>>> quite marked. The beat rate indicates to an experienced tuner that
>>> these tenths are less sharp than in standard 12t-ET tuning.
>>
> Gerald replied:
>> You will find, when you catch up on the conversation, that all of the 01-07
>> jerries are well above the 12t-ET major third.
>
> Bob now:
> Well, I've got a little egg on my face concerning the pitches and the
> deviation. I misperceived the third as a tenth above the root. It
> seems there is something about the timbre that deceived my ear
> concerning the pitch's octave, or I just woke up on the wrong side of
> the bed. It is, rather, just a plain third in the middle of the open
> fifth. This explains why it sounded so bitterly sharp to me
> considering the slow beat rate.

Actually, the tenth is the right perception, Bob. Paul prepared the second
jerries that way at my request. I felt it would be easier to hear consonance
when the elements were arranged in the pattern of the overtone series
(2:3:5). Incidentally, a little egg is not that bad. It wipes off quite
easily when not overly embarrassed about it. God knows, I've expressed an
omelette's worth of "dumb dumbs" on the list. But, you see, I've got Paul to
keep me straight.
>
---------------
>
> Bob earlier:
>>> I am, I suppose from past interaction on the list, of the apparently
>>> controversial opinion that substantial tuning experience, including
>>> simply playing a violin or singing with the objective of achieving
>>> just harmonies, "objectifies" the tuner's ear so that it is less
>>> subject to "aural illusions".
>
> Gerald replied:
>> I'm not sure what this means, perhaps due to my absence during your
>> "interaction." However, at this point, the topic of "aural illusions" is
>> very much in consideration.
>>>
> Bob now:
> There has been no past interaction from me on the Jerries. This was
> my first post here in awhile. I just mean what I've already implied
> in my above responses to your replies. In Jerry00 I do not hear
> any "high third" while the chord is sounding. When it stops and
> leaves the third alone, I do detect a subjective tendency to hear the
> pitch as having dropped somewhat, but I am not fooled by that, having
> had many years experience dealing with it. When I put my "objective
> hat" on and listen intently, I do not hear any pitch shift on Jerry00.

Perhaps I'll have to find an "objective hat" that will rescue me from the
illusion. But then I'll still have to deal with all those singers who just
belt out "real" high thirds. Hey, wait a minute! I'm retired! I don't have
to deal with anyone if I don't choose to. I'll just smile knowingly and go
on with my golf game.
>
> On all the others, the third actually *IS* high, and I assume this is
> not what you mean by the (illusory?) "high third" you seem to be
> referring to here. It is a real high third in every case; higher than
> I thought. I don't hear any significant variation either in terms of
> pitch deviation or beat rate in any of the examples after Jerry00.

Nor did I. In fact I wondered if there really were any differences, so I
dumped everything into my audio program and found that they were in fact
different, but not more than a cent. That's when I realized that Paul was
baiting me by asking me to estimate the differences in cents. What a guy!
He'll get me yet. You just watch.
>
> If finding which one of them after Jerry00 is the "best" tuning is
> the objective here, I must admit I do not understand that at all. I
> think they all sound lousy and out of tune. I do notice roughly the
> same subjective tendency to hear them as dropping in pitch as in
> Jerry00 when the other members of the chord drop out, but again, I'm
> not fooled by that.

Aha! That's what I wondered about. I don't hear that. (Does that make us
even?? ;-)
>
> I believe they all stay constant in pitch throughout the example,
> although the amount of the drop seems to vary somewhat for me from
> example to example. However, when I go back to listen again, the
> variations I thought I heard are not reliably replicated, so I'm not
> sure there is any consistent pattern to my subjective impressions in
> this regard. I suspect that the variations are subjective also, and
> in any case, they are slight whether "real" or "imagined".

Second Aha! We're not so different after all. Now if you will just go back
to jerry00 and "imagine" you're hearing a pitch drop, I'll be a happy
camper.
>
> I don't know what else to say. There is nothing interesting to hear
> for me after Jerry01. To me, they all sound essentially the same
> (i.e., badly sharp by roughly the same degree if not exactly).

Well, thanks, Bob, for this "inordinate" amount of time. I hope it wasn't
*all* a waste for you. Perhaps you'll at least be more tolerant in the
future of guys like me who "insist" they're hearing high thirds. Also
consider that maybe we all hear high thirds but don't know it. (Thought
you'd like that one.)

I'm looking forward to the next batch of jerries that will be even closer
together than the one you so patiently examined. Perhaps we'll find the one
that is not "badly sharp." Stay in touch.

Jerry