Jerries: a conclusion or two

Paul and other interested folks:

I believe we now have evidence that the ³high third² is, as you suspected
many months ago, a psycho-acoustic phenomenon. It may be more than that, but
it is at least that. While my request for the new format was intended simply
to be able to sing the high third and then compare it to your various
thirds, it has provided for some interesting insights.

First, some general observations. The beating rates in jerries 1-7 (old
format arranged in close voicing) are all approximately 6 to 7 per second.
The beating rates in jerries 01-07 (new format in open voicing) are all
about 3+ per second. I suppose this to be caused by their respective 4/5/6
and 2/3/5 positions (approximately) in the partials series. My conclusion
here is that the items in each set were pretty much equally ³out of tune² as
far as dissonance is concerned. Therefore, seeking the ³best² tuning in
terms of beating would be (and indeed was) quite fruitless.

My earlier reported ³epiphany² upon singing the high third into jerry00 and
finding agreement was exhilarating, as you would imagine. My initial thought
(as you know) was that you had discovered the tuning of the ³high third.² I
later noted, however, that when the root and fifth drop out in jerry00, the
sustaining third takes a dive of about fifty to sixty cents (considering my
novice experience with such measurements). That observation convinced me
that jerry00 (and likely jerry0) is JI.

Then I simply listened to jerry00 without singing. The impression of high
third was there‹loud and clear. Again, when the root and third dropped out,
the perceivable pitch of the third was clearly lower than when sounding in
the major chord. This seems to demonstrate why Joseph, upon hearing jerry0,
reported hearing a third that was considerably higher than JI. (I wish more
had offered their impressions. Thanks, Joe. I noticed that Gene has
inquired. Any others????)

My son was getting ready to walk out the door the other day but I delayed
him long enough to get his opinion as to the ³best² tuning of the eight new
jerries. Erik is not a professional musician but he plays a mean guitar (by
ear) and he listens to a lot of music. He selected jerry04 and jerry07. He
wasn¹t sure which of these two he liked better. (Jerries 04 and 07 were my
own choices, as I reported here earlier.)

Over the weekend, my brother was here. Jon is neither a musician nor a
choral singer, but he has great ears. Without explaining the purpose, I
asked him to listen to the new jerries and to tell me which tuning he
preferred. He was quite sure he favored jerry04. I suggested he listen again
to jerry00 and compare; he stayed with jerry04. Then I asked him to sing
³his² third into the empty fifth in both examples; the third he sang was
exactly the third I would have sung. He said he heard similar agreement in
both jerry00 and jerry04 but still preferred jerry04.

So, why didn¹t Erik and Jon prefer the JI jerry00, with its near-perfect
beatless consonance? Were they ³brainwashed² by having heard high thirds all
of their lives? Why were they (and I, for that matter) agreed that jerry04
was the ³best² tuning among the new jerries?

I had observed earlier that I could sing either the JI third or the high
third into jerry00 with considerable agreement. When singing the JI third
the agreement would, of course, extend through the end of the example, even
after the root and fifth dropped out. However, when I sang the high third,
the ³consonance² sounded only while the root and fifth were sounding; after
that point, the dissonance between my third and the JI third was clearly
audible.

I wondered whether Jon preferred jerry04 over jerry00 because he sensed a
dissonance between his third and the JI third. The dissonance had been quite
evident to me after the root and third dropped out but not so much before
that. Perhaps he sensed it during the sounding of the three-note chord.
There would, of course, be less potential for that particular dissonance in
jerry04 since there was only one third present.

To dig further into these and other questions, I converted Paul¹s .wav files
to .aif and loaded them into Audio Logic in order to play them
simultaneously. I played jerry00 simultaneously with each of the other new
jerries, and, as I suspected, the best sounding combination was with
jerry04, with jerry07 a close second.

Then, to further explore my impressions, I slid the examples backward and
forward in temporal relation to each other in order to hear changes as
various thirds entered and left the mix. Again, jerry04 created the least
variation in ³expected² pitch when played with jerry00. However, at the end
of the staggered playings, the last sounding pitch seemed either very high
or very low, depending on which of the two jerries was last. The difference
in the two thirds was enormous, in my opinion.

These observations helped settle one important question in my mind. The
³high third² is not a product of culturally induced preference. Rather it is
a specific harmonic perceptual experience produced by the well-tuned
combination of root, fifth and major third. It likely doesn¹t occur when the
elements are not well tuned, as in 12t-ET piano chords. Perhaps that is why
singers, string players and certain wind players are more likely to be
influenced by it.

On the other hand, these observations raise a number of other interesting
questions. Are all high-third experiences a result of hearing well-tuned JI
major triads? Or do musicians actually produce real high thirds as a result
of having experienced the psycho-acoustically produced JI ³high² third. Or
are all ³high² thirds actually well-tuned JI and we simply *think* they are
higher than JI?

My impression is that I was singing a real high third in relation to jerry00
because my voice was dissonant to the JI third after the root and fifth
dropped out. Also, remember that Jon preferred the ³naked² high third in
jerry04 rather than the one he sang along with the JI third in jerry00.
These observations would seem to suggest that nature ³taught² us the high
third, we got used to hearing it, and learned to produce it at will.

SoŠŠwhaddya think???

Paul, are you ready to unveil your numbers? Any further requests?

Gerald Eskelin

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> Paul and other interested folks:
>
> I believe we now have evidence that the ³high third² is, as you suspected=

> many months ago, a psycho-acoustic phenomenon. It may be more than that, =
but
> it is at least that. While my request for the new format was intended sim=
ply
> to be able to sing the high third and then compare it to your various
> thirds, it has provided for some interesting insights.
>
> First, some general observations. The beating rates in jerries 1-7 (old
> format arranged in close voicing) are all approximately 6 to 7 per second=
.
> The beating rates in jerries 01-07 (new format in open voicing) are all
> about 3+ per second. I suppose this to be caused by their respective 4/5/=
6
> and 2/3/5 positions (approximately) in the partials series. My conclusion=

> here is that the items in each set were pretty much equally ³out of tune²=
as
> far as dissonance is concerned. Therefore, seeking the ³best² tuning in
> terms of beating would be (and indeed was) quite fruitless.
>
> My earlier reported ³epiphany² upon singing the high third into jerry00 a=
nd
> finding agreement was exhilarating, as you would imagine. My initial thou=
ght
> (as you know) was that you had discovered the tuning of the ³high third.²=
I
> later noted, however, that when the root and fifth drop out in jerry00, t=
he
> sustaining third takes a dive of about fifty to sixty cents (considering =
my
> novice experience with such measurements). That observation convinced me
> that jerry00 (and likely jerry0) is JI.

just to clarify for those reading along, the dive of fifty to sixty cents w=
hat was jerry *heard* -- there was no actual dive in the frequency of the su=
staining third, or any change in the frequency of any of the sounding pitche=
s in each example.

>
> Then I simply listened to jerry00 without singing. The impression of high=

> third was there‹loud and clear. Again, when the root and third dropped ou=
t,
> the perceivable pitch of the third was clearly lower than when sounding i=
n
> the major chord. This seems to demonstrate why Joseph, upon hearing jerry=
0,
> reported hearing a third that was considerably higher than JI. (I wish mo=
re
> had offered their impressions. Thanks, Joe. I noticed that Gene has
> inquired. Any others????)
>
> My son was getting ready to walk out the door the other day but I delayed=

> him long enough to get his opinion as to the ³best² tuning of the eight n=
ew
> jerries. Erik is not a professional musician but he plays a mean guitar (=
by
> ear) and he listens to a lot of music. He selected jerry04 and jerry07. H=
e
> wasn¹t sure which of these two he liked better. (Jerries 04 and 07 were m=
y
> own choices, as I reported here earlier.)

ok . . .

> Over the weekend, my brother was here. Jon is neither a musician nor a
> choral singer, but he has great ears. Without explaining the purpose, I
> asked him to listen to the new jerries and to tell me which tuning he
> preferred. He was quite sure he favored jerry04. I suggested he listen ag=
ain
> to jerry00 and compare; he stayed with jerry04. Then I asked him to sing
> ³his² third into the empty fifth in both examples; the third he sang was
> exactly the third I would have sung. He said he heard similar agreement i=
n
> both jerry00 and jerry04 but still preferred jerry04.
>
> So, why didn¹t Erik and Jon prefer the JI jerry00, with its near-perfect
> beatless consonance? Were they ³brainwashed² by having heard high thirds =
all
> of their lives? Why were they (and I, for that matter) agreed that jerry0=
4
> was the ³best² tuning among the new jerries?
>
> I had observed earlier that I could sing either the JI third or the high
> third into jerry00 with considerable agreement. When singing the JI third=

> the agreement would, of course, extend through the end of the example, ev=
en
> after the root and fifth dropped out. However, when I sang the high third=
,
> the ³consonance² sounded only while the root and fifth were sounding; aft=
er
> that point, the dissonance between my third and the JI third was clearly
> audible.
>
> I wondered whether Jon preferred jerry04 over jerry00 because he sensed a=

> dissonance between his third and the JI third. The dissonance had been qu=
ite
> evident to me after the root and third dropped out but not so much before=

> that. Perhaps he sensed it during the sounding of the three-note chord.
> There would, of course, be less potential for that particular dissonance =
in
> jerry04 since there was only one third present.
>
> To dig further into these and other questions, I converted Paul¹s .wav fi=
les
> to .aif and loaded them into Audio Logic in order to play them
> simultaneously. I played jerry00 simultaneously with each of the other ne=
w
> jerries, and, as I suspected, the best sounding combination was with
> jerry04, with jerry07 a close second.
>
> Then, to further explore my impressions, I slid the examples backward and=

> forward in temporal relation to each other in order to hear changes as
> various thirds entered and left the mix. Again, jerry04 created the least=

> variation in ³expected² pitch when played with jerry00. However, at the e=
nd
> of the staggered playings, the last sounding pitch seemed either very hig=
h
> or very low, depending on which of the two jerries was last. The differen=
ce
> in the two thirds was enormous, in my opinion.
>
> These observations helped settle one important question in my mind. The
> ³high third² is not a product of culturally induced preference. Rather it=
is
> a specific harmonic perceptual experience produced by the well-tuned
> combination of root, fifth and major third. It likely doesn¹t occur when =
the
> elements are not well tuned, as in 12t-ET piano chords. Perhaps that is w=
hy
> singers, string players and certain wind players are more likely to be
> influenced by it.
>
> On the other hand, these observations raise a number of other interesting=

> questions. Are all high-third experiences a result of hearing well-tuned =
JI
> major triads? Or do musicians actually produce real high thirds as a resu=
lt
> of having experienced the psycho-acoustically produced JI ³high² third. O=
r
> are all ³high² thirds actually well-tuned JI and we simply *think* they a=
re
> higher than JI?
>
> My impression is that I was singing a real high third in relation to jerr=
y00
> because my voice was dissonant to the JI third after the root and fifth
> dropped out. Also, remember that Jon preferred the ³naked² high third in
> jerry04 rather than the one he sang along with the JI third in jerry00.
> These observations would seem to suggest that nature ³taught² us the high=

> third, we got used to hearing it, and learned to produce it at will.
>
> SoŠŠwhaddya think???
>
> Paul, are you ready to unveil your numbers? Any further requests?
>
> Gerald Eskelin

did you get *any* sense of which ones were higher or lower? could you guess=
a ranking? approximate cents values?

The carry over of my original message in Paul's response post was pretty
garbled, breaking words and jumping carrots, so I tried to clean it up for
anyone wishing to catch up on this. Hope it travels better this time.

J

On 3/11/02 9:00 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 24
> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:43:02 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>> Paul and other interested folks:
>>
>> I believe we now have evidence that the ³high third² is, as you suspected
>> many months ago, a psycho-acoustic phenomenon. It may be more than that, but
>> it is at least that. While my request for the new format was intended simply
>> to be able to sing the high third and then compare it to your various
>> thirds, it has provided for some interesting insights.
>>
>> First, some general observations. The beating rates in jerries 1-7 (old
>> format arranged in close voicing) are all approximately 6 to 7 per second.
>> The beating rates in jerries 01-07 (new format in open voicing) are all
>> about 3+ per second. I suppose this to be caused by their respective 4/5/6
>> and 2/3/5 positions (approximately) in the partials series. My conclusion
>> here is that the items in each set were pretty much equally ³out of tune² as
>> far as dissonance is concerned. Therefore, seeking the ³best² tuning in
>> terms of beating would be (and indeed was) quite fruitless.
>>
>> My earlier reported ³epiphany² upon singing the high third into jerry00 and
>> finding agreement was exhilarating, as you would imagine. My initial thought
>> (as you know) was that you had discovered the tuning of the ³high third.² I
>> later noted, however, that when the root and fifth drop out in jerry00, the
>> sustaining third takes a dive of about fifty to sixty cents (considering my
>> novice experience with such measurements). That observation convinced me
>> that jerry00 (and likely jerry0) is JI.
>
> just to clarify for those reading along, the dive of fifty to sixty cents
> was what jerry *heard* -- there was no actual dive in the frequency of the
>sustaining third, or any change in the frequency of any of the sounding pitches
> in each example.

Yes. Thanks for the clarification, Paul. That point is critical to
understanding what is going on here.

>> Then I simply listened to jerry00 without singing. The impression of
>>highthird was there‹loud and clear. Again, when the root and third dropped
>>out, the perceivable pitch of the third was clearly lower than when sounding
>> in the major chord. This seems to demonstrate why Joseph, upon hearing
>>jerry0, reported hearing a third that was considerably higher than JI. (I wish
>> more had offered their impressions. Thanks, Joe. I noticed that Gene has
>> inquired. Any others????)
>>
>> My son was getting ready to walk out the door the other day but I delayed him
>> long enough to get his opinion as to the ³best² tuning of the eight new
>> jerries. Erik is not a professional musician but he plays a mean guitar (by
>> ear) and he listens to a lot of music. He selected jerry04 and jerry07. He
>> wasn¹t sure which of these two he liked better. (Jerries 04 and 07 were my
>> own choices, as I reported here earlier.)

> ok . . .
>
>> Over the weekend, my brother was here. Jon is neither a musician nor a
>> choral singer, but he has great ears. Without explaining the purpose, I
>> asked him to listen to the new jerries and to tell me which tuning he
>> preferred. He was quite sure he favored jerry04. I suggested he listen again
>> to jerry00 and compare; he stayed with jerry04. Then I asked him to sing
>> ³his² third into the empty fifth in both examples; the third he sang was
>> exactly the third I would have sung. He said he heard similar agreement in
>> both jerry00 and jerry04 but still preferred jerry04.
>>
>> So, why didn¹t Erik and Jon prefer the JI jerry00, with its near-perfect
>> beatless consonance? Were they ³brainwashed² by having heard high thirds all
>> of their lives? Why were they (and I, for that matter) agreed that jerry04
>> was the ³best² tuning among the new jerries?
>>
>> I had observed earlier that I could sing either the JI third or the high
>> third into jerry00 with considerable agreement. When singing the JI third
>> the agreement would, of course, extend through the end of the example, even
>> after the root and fifth dropped out. However, when I sang the high third,
>> the ³consonance² sounded only while the root and fifth were sounding; after
>> that point, the dissonance between my third and the JI third was clearly
>> audible.
>>
>> I wondered whether Jon preferred jerry04 over jerry00 because he sensed a
>>dissonance between his third and the JI third. The dissonance had been quite
>> evident to me after the root and third dropped out but not so much before
>>that. Perhaps he sensed it during the sounding of the three-note chord.
>> There would, of course, be less potential for that particular dissonance in
>> jerry04 since there was only one third present.
>>
>> To dig further into these and other questions, I converted Paul¹s .wav files
>> to .aif and loaded them into Audio Logic in order to play them
>> simultaneously. I played jerry00 simultaneously with each of the other new
>> jerries, and, as I suspected, the best sounding combination was with
>> jerry04, with jerry07 a close second.
>>
>> Then, to further explore my impressions, I slid the examples backward and
>>forward in temporal relation to each other in order to hear changes as
>> various thirds entered and left the mix. Again, jerry04 created the least
>>variation in ³expected² pitch when played with jerry00. However, at the end
>> of the staggered playings, the last sounding pitch seemed either very high
>> or very low, depending on which of the two jerries was last. The difference
>> in the two thirds was enormous, in my opinion.
>>
>> These observations helped settle one important question in my mind. The
>> ³high third² is not a product of culturally induced preference. Rather it is
>> a specific harmonic perceptual experience produced by the well-tuned
>> combination of root, fifth and major third. It likely doesn¹t occur when the
>> elements are not well tuned, as in 12t-ET piano chords. Perhaps that is why
>> singers, string players and certain wind players are more likely to be
>> influenced by it.
>>
>> On the other hand, these observations raise a number of other interesting
>>questions. Are all high-third experiences a result of hearing well-tuned JI
>> major triads? Or do musicians actually produce real high thirds as a result
>> of having experienced the psycho-acoustically produced JI ³high² third. Or
>> are all ³high² thirds actually well-tuned JI and we simply *think* they are
>> higher than JI?
>>
>> My impression is that I was singing a real high third in relation to jerry00
>> because my voice was dissonant to the JI third after the root and fifth
>> dropped out. Also, remember that Jon preferred the ³naked² high third in
>> jerry04 rather than the one he sang along with the JI third in jerry00.
>> These observations would seem to suggest that nature ³taught² us the high
>>third, we got used to hearing it, and learned to produce it at will.
>>
>> SoŠŠwhaddya think???
>>
>> Paul, are you ready to unveil your numbers? Any further requests?
>>
>> Gerald Eskelin
>
> did you get *any* sense of which ones were higher or lower? could you guess
> a ranking? approximate cents values?

Yes, I did get a sense of which ones were higher or lower. The problem was
that it changed to some extent from day to day and from pass to pass. Even
the way I held my head in relation to the speakers changed the perception to
some extent. One of the problems in perception was the difference in
"timbre" caused by the beating of the "real" high thirds. In that sense, the
"warmth" of the real ones contrasts with the "starkness" of the JI one,
which tends to interfere with the perceptual isolation of pitch alone.

On the other hand, there was considerable consistency on which of the
jerries 01-07 were "closer" to jerry00. The "winnners" are still 04 and 07,
but 01 and 05 are pretty close, too. In fact all of the jerries in this
batch could probably "pass" as a practical high third. I'm quite sure I've
heard them all at one time or another. As far as a "for sure" ranking is
concerned, they're all too close to call with any assurance that tomorrow's
perception will be the same as today's.

Concerning the matter of approximate cents value, I'm convinced that the
difference in pitch between all the real thirds here is less than one cent.
I'm told that the difference between an acoustic perfect fifth and a 12t-ET
fifth is only two or three cents. I know very well what that difference
sounds like. I don't hear anything close to that difference between these
"real" thirds.

To test that hypothesis, I isolated the single-tone regions of jerries
01-07 ("real" thirds) and played them together and one after the other. When
played together, they sound like a fairly good unison. When played one after
the other, they sound like the "same pitch." However, when I played the odd
numbered ones together and then the even numbered ones together, there was a
clear difference in pitch; which shows that there are in fact different
pitches here.

Following that exercise, I played each isolated third immediately following
the JI triad, letting the triad sound long enough to establish the "high
third" effect. Now, without the beating of the real high-third triad, I was
able to hear a comparison of each real third to the JI produced third.

Again, most of them sounded a bit higher than the JI third, some more than
others (but not consistently). 07 sounded very close. So, I played 07 in
combination with each of the others. The best combination was 07 and 05. Too
my surprise, the combination of 04 and 07 (everyone's favorites when heard
in a triad) sounded "reluctantly," beginning with only the high overtones
and gradually filling out the full body of the tone. Strange!

So, I think this is the best I can do. My conclusions, as I stated earlier,
is that we probably learn the high third from experiencing the
psycho-acoustic "high" third in well-tuned (JI) triads, and then likely
produce *actual* high thirds because they "sound good."

Incidentally, I didn't learn that the JI third was actually lower than the
keyboard's third until I had been a college teacher for fifteen years. My
ears always heard it as higher. Now I know why.

Okay. That's it, Paul. Your take on all of this, please. (And hopefully many
other takes, as well.)

Gerald Eskelin

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

> Again, most of them sounded a bit higher than the JI third, some
more than
> others (but not consistently). 07 sounded very close. So, I played
07 in
> combination with each of the others. The best combination was 07
and 05. Too
> my surprise, the combination of 04 and 07 (everyone's favorites
when heard
> in a triad) sounded "reluctantly," beginning with only the high
overtones
> and gradually filling out the full body of the tone. Strange!

probably some sort of phase effect.

> So, I think this is the best I can do. My conclusions, as I stated
earlier,
> is that we probably learn the high third from experiencing the
> psycho-acoustic "high" third in well-tuned (JI) triads, and then
likely
> produce *actual* high thirds because they "sound good."

but wouldn't singing the JI third result in the psycho-
acoustic "high" third and therefore sound good? wouldn't singing an
actual high third result in a psychoacoustic "even higher" third, and
therefore sound bad?
>
> Okay. That's it, Paul. Your take on all of this, please. (And
hopefully many
> other takes, as well.)

well, by giving the results right now, i'm making it impossible for
anyone else to give a blind listen, but no one else really tried
(except for joseph), so here goes:

you were right that #0 is JI.
you were also right that #7 is closest to #0 (though i'm not
surprised that you needed to do some computer manipulation of the
files to make that determination).
here are the cents values for the major third (note that the fifth
was a just 701.955 cents):

#0 : 386.314¢
#7 : 403.442
#1 : 403.642
#4 : 403.842
#2 : 404.042
#6 : 404.242
#5 : 404.442
#3 : 404.642

i wonder, if i had made examples even closer to #0, if you guys would
have preferred those over #7 and #4 . . .

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35629

>
> #0 : 386.314¢
> #7 : 403.442
> #1 : 403.642
> #4 : 403.842
> #2 : 404.042
> #6 : 404.242
> #5 : 404.442
> #3 : 404.642
>
> i wonder, if i had made examples even closer to #0, if you guys
would have preferred those over #7 and #4 . . .

***Hi Paul!

I was just thinking that upon looking at these numbers. For me,
there was a "big jump" from a chord that didn't beat to all the
others, which seemed very similar and had about the same frequency of
beats. I still don't know why #0 didn't sound "just" to me. It
seemed much larger and Jerry, I believe, had a similar reaction, at
least one time through. Could it have been the timbre? Though I
doubt that...

This would be a good one for "penny pinchers" ...

jp

On 3/13/02 2:54 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:13:37 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Again, most of them sounded a bit higher than the JI third, some more than
>> others (but not consistently). 07 sounded very close. So, I played 07 in
>> combination with each of the others. The best combination was 07 and 05. Too
>> my surprise, the combination of 04 and 07 (everyone's favorites when heard
>> in a triad) sounded "reluctantly," beginning with only the high overtones
>> and gradually filling out the full body of the tone. Strange!
>
> probably some sort of phase effect.
>
>> So, I think this is the best I can do. My conclusions, as I stated earlier,
>> is that we probably learn the high third from experiencing the
>> psycho-acoustic "high" third in well-tuned (JI) triads, and then likely
>> produce *actual* high thirds because they "sound good."
>
> but wouldn't singing the JI third result in the psycho-
> acoustic "high" third and therefore sound good?

Yes, it does. But singing a pitch that "agrees" with the apparent high third
*also* sounds good. When singing the JI third into jerry00, it is perfectly
in tune with the recorded JI third when the root and fifth drop out.
However, when singing the "real" high third into jerry00, it becomes
dissonant with the recorded JI third when the root and fifth drop out.
That's what is so interesting to me.

> wouldn't singing an
> actual high third result in a psychoacoustic "even higher" third, and
> therefore sound bad?

No. That doesn't happen. That's also what makes it so interesting.
Apparently, the illusionary high third only appears when the three elements
(root, fifth and third) are in perfect JI tuning (2:3:5, 4:5:6 and possibly
other arrangements). So, when an actual high third is sung into a perfectly
tuned fifth (2:3) it doesn't produce a "higher" third. It simply "sounds
good."
>>
>> Okay. That's it, Paul. Your take on all of this, please. (And hopefully many
>> other takes, as well.)
>
> well, by giving the results right now, i'm making it impossible for
> anyone else to give a blind listen, but no one else really tried
> (except for joseph),

Perhaps we wore everyone out last year with our "high third" shenanigans,
and folks figured we were simply chasing ghosts again. Too bad! I think this
exercise has resulted in *very* significant evidence, and explains very
clearly (at least to me) why the "high third" is so commonly popular with
singers, string players and other musicians who have opportunity to hear JI
major triads (as opposed to keyboard ones).

I might have expected disinterest from a bunch of piano players, but I'm
disappointed that more of the experienced ears in this group didn't weigh
in. (Johnny????) On the other hand, perhaps their first round with the
jerries were as confusing to them as they were to me, and they didn't have
the time to "play" with the raw material as I did.

On the other hand, I'm wondering how many of this august society have
knowingly experienced the "high third" phenomenon. It's not hard to do. My
beginner singers in my "baby choir" at the college have experienced it
(without being prompted, by the way). Yet, my micro-tuning colleague at
school believes the "high third" simply sounds sharp. What about you? Listen
to jerry00. Does the third "take a dive" when the root and third drop out?
If so, you're hearing the "high third."

> so here goes:
>
> you were right that #0 is JI.
> you were also right that #7 is closest to #0 (though i'm not
> surprised that you needed to do some computer manipulation of the
> files to make that determination).
> here are the cents values for the major third (note that the fifth
> was a just 701.955 cents):
>
> #0 : 386.314¢
> #7 : 403.442
> #1 : 403.642
> #4 : 403.842
> #2 : 404.042
> #6 : 404.242
> #5 : 404.442
> #3 : 404.642

Evidently, I'm also right that all the real high-third jerries (01-07) were
not (much) more than one cent different.

> i wonder, if i had made examples even closer to #0, if you guys would
> have preferred those over #7 and #4 . . .

I think there is a good chance that a slightly lower "real" third would be
even closer to the illusionary third. All of the real-third jerries sounded
high to me most of the time. Who knows? A "just right" (no pun intended)
high third might even sound fairly "consonant" when played together with
jerry00. My *voice* did.

Hmmmm? Maybe we're not done yet, Paul. Still interested??????

Love ya,

Jerry

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

> Yes, it does. But singing a pitch that "agrees" with the apparent
high third
> *also* sounds good.

what does that mean? aren't you *hearing* your voice, just as you're
*hearing* the ji third in the recording?
>
> > wouldn't singing an
> > actual high third result in a psychoacoustic "even higher" third,
and
> > therefore sound bad?
>
> No. That doesn't happen. That's also what makes it so interesting.
> Apparently, the illusionary high third only appears when the three
elements
> (root, fifth and third) are in perfect JI tuning (2:3:5, 4:5:6 and
possibly
> other arrangements). So, when an actual high third is sung into a
perfectly
> tuned fifth (2:3) it doesn't produce a "higher" third. It
simply "sound
> good."

i can't think of any known or postulated psychoacoustic effect that
would explain an observation like this.

> >>
> >> Okay. That's it, Paul. Your take on all of this, please. (And
hopefully many
> >> other takes, as well.)
> >
> > well, by giving the results right now, i'm making it impossible
for
> > anyone else to give a blind listen, but no one else really tried
> > (except for joseph),
>
> Perhaps we wore everyone out last year with our "high third"
shenanigans,
> and folks figured we were simply chasing ghosts again. Too bad! I
think this
> exercise has resulted in *very* significant evidence, and explains
very
> clearly (at least to me) why the "high third" is so commonly
popular with
> singers, string players and other musicians who have opportunity to
hear JI
> major triads (as opposed to keyboard ones).
>
> I might have expected disinterest from a bunch of piano players,
but I'm
> disappointed that more of the experienced ears in this group didn't
weigh
> in. (Johnny????) On the other hand, perhaps their first round with
the
> jerries were as confusing to them as they were to me, and they
didn't have
> the time to "play" with the raw material as I did.
>
> On the other hand, I'm wondering how many of this august society
have
> knowingly experienced the "high third" phenomenon. It's not hard to
do. My
> beginner singers in my "baby choir" at the college have experienced
it
> (without being prompted, by the way). Yet, my micro-tuning
colleague at
> school believes the "high third" simply sounds sharp. What about
you? Listen
> to jerry00. Does the third "take a dive" when the root and third
drop out?

no, i don't hear that. but i remember hearing things like that when i
was first experimenting with microtonality. it's a psychological
(call it psychoacoustical) phenomenon known as *categorical
perception*. if you've been brought up as a musician in an equal-
tempered musical environment, a few youngsters acquire perfect pitch,
but the rest of us still the intervals we hear into mutually
exclusive categories. there have been startling psychological
demonstrations of this and the tricks it can play on musicians' ears.
the effects disappear in those with no musical interest, those from
very different cultures, and those who have subjected their ears to
alternative tunings for long periods.

> Hmmmm? Maybe we're not done yet, Paul. Still interested??????

of course. next set of jerries coming soon.

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> > well, by giving the results right now, i'm making it impossible for
> > anyone else to give a blind listen, but no one else really tried
> > (except for joseph),

> Perhaps we wore everyone out last year with our "high third" shenanigans,
> and folks figured we were simply chasing ghosts again.

Next time put them in mp3s and maybe some more people will try it. Also, make it clear what we are supposed to do with these samples.

Hello,

I spend some time trying to analyse the "Jerries" in order to unveil their
mysteries. I understand why I was not able to do so. I used Amadeus II which
is a very convenient analysis tool (on Mac) to get spectrum of the jerries.
I used the maximum window size available with the tool which is 32000 sample
(0.75 sec). Then the resolution in frequencies was "only" of 1.5 Hz. Given
that the difference between the highest and lowest "jerries" is 1.2 cent, in
other words, 0.07%, the resolution needed was available only well beyond
2000 Hz (the THEORITICAL threshold).

It is worth to be noted that those measurement issues are not simply
instrument artifact: it is a fundamental theoretical fact that for ANY
time->frequency domain transformation, the resolution in frequency cannot
exceed 1/WS where WS is the window size. I doubt that the integration of the
signal performed by the cochlea and the central nervous system exceeds by
much one seconds, so I doubt that we can, by ear, make the difference for
less than a few cents.

Personally I was pleased by jerry0 and found all the others a little harsher
and absolutely identical (I am not a professional musician used to
microtonality, just an amateur chorus singer). So I was puzzled that many
other members of this forum found differences that I couldn't neither ear
nor measure ( I do not challenge the fact that the difference may be eared)

Looking again at the spectrum of those jerries, it appears that:

- the partial peaks are relatively blunt (if compared for instance to
the sound of a plucked string) so that there is a relatively high level of
noise between the peaks.
- there are some antiresonances in the spectrum of the noise. The
locations of those antiresonnances differs between the jerries.
- when near a partial the antiresonnance may "push" a little that
partial up or down (depending if the it is below or above the partial)

So it may be the structure of the background noise that make the difference.
I know (for having working on the subject in another life) that, in some
context, the human ear may be sensitive to antiresonnance: that usually
contribute to the perception of "nasality".

I wonder what would have been the results with pure harmonic synthesis
(tones construct from sines, with extremely sharp partial and no background
noise).

yours, truly

François Laferrière

--- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...>
wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35638
.
>
> Personally I was pleased by jerry0 and found all the others a
little harsher and absolutely identical (I am not a professional
musician used to microtonality, just an amateur chorus singer). So I
was puzzled that many other members of this forum found differences
that I couldn't neither ear nor measure ( I do not challenge the fact
that the difference may be eared)
>

***I guess I should be ashamed to say I had exactly the same
experience. I h-ear-d no difference at all. In fact, after
listening to them all, it even made the "just" one sound "wide"
although I could tell from the lack of beating that it was
quite "different" from the others...

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

> Next time put them in mp3s and maybe some more people will try it.

there was some concern expressed about the resolution of mp3s last
time we did things that way.

> Also, make it clear what we are supposed to do with these samples.

you can do whatever you like with them!

--- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...>
wrote:

> So it may be the structure of the background noise that make the
difference.

i assure you that any background noise was an artifact of your
analysis -- or perhaps of the rounding in the digital quantization.

--- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...>
wrote:

> It is worth to be noted that those measurement issues are not simply
> instrument artifact: it is a fundamental theoretical fact that for
ANY
> time->frequency domain transformation, the resolution in frequency
cannot
> exceed 1/WS where WS is the window size. I doubt that the
integration of the
> signal performed by the cochlea and the central nervous system
exceeds by
> much one seconds, so I doubt that we can, by ear, make the
difference for
> less than a few cents.

i made this argument a few months ago here -- search the archives
for 'classical uncertainty principle'. the argument was not at all
well received here, and one of the counteraguments involved the
(true) fact that the human auditory system uses mechanisms other than
position on the cochlea to make frequency determinations.
nevertheless, i agree that it is an important argument.

On 3/14/02 3:58 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:33:01 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35629
>
>>
>> #0 : 386.314¢
>> #7 : 403.442
>> #1 : 403.642
>> #4 : 403.842
>> #2 : 404.042
>> #6 : 404.242
>> #5 : 404.442
>> #3 : 404.642
>>
>> i wonder, if i had made examples even closer to #0, if you guys
> would have preferred those over #7 and #4 . . .
>
> ***Hi Paul!
>
> I was just thinking that upon looking at these numbers. For me,
> there was a "big jump" from a chord that didn't beat to all the
> others, which seemed very similar and had about the same frequency of
> beats. I still don't know why #0 didn't sound "just" to me. It
> seemed much larger and Jerry, I believe, had a similar reaction, at
> least one time through. Could it have been the timbre? Though I
> doubt that...
>
> This would be a good one for "penny pinchers" ...
>
> jp
>
Hi Joe,

Pardon the intrusion (since your post is addressed to Paul), but I think I
can help. I had the "similar reaction" (high third) *every* time through. I
later assumed it was JI because it didn't "beat" the way the others did.
This was verified by jerry00 (in the requested modifications) when the
exposed third at the end of the example took a dive. Did you get the same
perceptions?

Did you read my long (sorry 'bout that) post in which I concluded that the
"high third" stems from a psycho-acoustic phenomenon? I think that should
help to shed some light on your question. If not, I'll try again.

Thanks for being involved in all of this. I appreciate your input. Please
stay with us.

Jerry

On 3/14/02 3:58 PM, I wrote:

> I think there is a good chance that a slightly lower "real" third would be
> even closer to the illusionary third. All of the real-third jerries sounded
> high to me most of the time. Who knows? A "just right" (no pun intended)
> high third might even sound fairly "consonant" when played together with
> jerry00. My *voice* did.

I went back to my notes and was reminded that on some passes I had rated
jerry07 as "ever so slightly low." Perhaps we should explore the area on
both sides of jerry07. As you know, Paul, I originally (before we started
this series of experiments) suspected that the true high third (the one
produced by *hearing* a JI triad) lies somewhere between the standard
cent-marks. I think you and I have demonstrated that this suspicion was well
founded.

The best of all possible outcomes here would be that if Paul produces just
the right frequency for the "real" high third, it would sound quite "in
tune" when sounded with the "perceptual" third of the JI triad. (As my voice
seemed to do.) Of course, the *very* best of outcomes would be that many of
you here on the tuning list actually *hear* the result.

Jerry

On 3/14/02 3:58 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:28:31 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Yes, it does. But singing a pitch that "agrees" with the apparent high third
>> *also* sounds good.
>
> what does that mean? aren't you *hearing* your voice, just as you're
> *hearing* the ji third in the recording?

Yes. Of course it does. That's the point. My voice seems to be "in tune"
with the JI illusionary third.
>>
>>> wouldn't singing an
>>> actual high third result in a psychoacoustic "even higher" third, and
>>> therefore sound bad?
>>
>> No. That doesn't happen. That's also what makes it so interesting.
>> Apparently, the illusionary high third only appears when the three elements
>> (root, fifth and third) are in perfect JI tuning (2:3:5, 4:5:6 and possibly
>> other arrangements). So, when an actual high third is sung into a perfectly
>> tuned fifth (2:3) it doesn't produce a "higher" third. It simply "sounds
>> good."
>
> i can't think of any known or postulated psychoacoustic effect that
> would explain an observation like this.

Okay. So let's postulate one. I'm just telling you what I have experienced.
Are Joe and I (and likely thousands of other "believers") simply mistaken?
>>>>
>>>> Okay. That's it, Paul. Your take on all of this, please. (And hopefully
>>>> many other takes, as well.)
>>>
>>> well, by giving the results right now, i'm making it impossible for
>>> anyone else to give a blind listen, but no one else really tried
>>> (except for joseph),
>>
>> Perhaps we wore everyone out last year with our "high third" shenanigans,
>> and folks figured we were simply chasing ghosts again. Too bad! I think this
>> exercise has resulted in *very* significant evidence, and explains very
>> clearly (at least to me) why the "high third" is so commonly popular with
>> singers, string players and other musicians who have opportunity to hear JI
>> major triads (as opposed to keyboard ones).
>>
>> I might have expected disinterest from a bunch of piano players, but I'm
>> disappointed that more of the experienced ears in this group didn't weigh
>> in. (Johnny????) On the other hand, perhaps their first round with the
>> jerries were as confusing to them as they were to me, and they didn't have
>> the time to "play" with the raw material as I did.
>>
>> On the other hand, I'm wondering how many of this august society have
>> knowingly experienced the "high third" phenomenon. It's not hard to do. My
>> beginner singers in my "baby choir" at the college have experienced it
>> (without being prompted, by the way). Yet, my micro-tuning colleague at
>> school believes the "high third" simply sounds sharp. What about you? Listen
>> to jerry00. Does the third "take a dive" when the root and third drop out?
>
> no, i don't hear that. but i remember hearing things like that when i
> was first experimenting with microtonality. it's a psychological
> (call it psychoacoustical) phenomenon known as *categorical
> perception*. if you've been brought up as a musician in an equal-
> tempered musical environment, a few youngsters acquire perfect pitch,
> but the rest of us still the intervals we hear into mutually
> exclusive categories. there have been startling psychological
> demonstrations of this and the tricks it can play on musicians' ears.
> the effects disappear in those with no musical interest, those from
> very different cultures, and those who have subjected their ears to
> alternative tunings for long periods.

Yep. We're all different to some degree, depending on our "input."
Interesting to me that you "remember" hearing the high third but now have
"trained" your ear to ignore it. Perhaps this is the wrong crowd to test
what appears to be a "malady" of singers and string players. :-)

BTW, I have the time now (since I recently retired from my college gig) to
do some reading. Do you remember the sources of your info about "categorical
perception"? Who knows? I might even understand some of it.
>
>> Hmmmm? Maybe we're not done yet, Paul. Still interested??????
>
> of course. next set of jerries coming soon.

(Why did I know he would say that?)

Jerry

(Paul, why do my nice neat paragraphs turn into chopped liver when you
repost them on the list? What browser are you using? It takes me five or ten
minutes just to fix them before posting my responses to your responses. Now
*there's* a practical use of your spare time?)

Thanks for your input, François. You raised some interesting points.

> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:27:48 +0100
> From: LAFERRIERE <francois.laferriere@cegetel.fr>
> Subject: RE: Jerries: a conclusion or two

> I doubt that the integration of the
> signal performed by the cochlea and the central nervous system exceeds by
> much one seconds, so I doubt that we can, by ear, make the difference for
> less than a few cents.

It is important to differentiate between perception of harmonic differences
and melodic differences. While it is likely that comparison of such pitches
sounded in series is probably as you say, it may be that comparison of
harmonic relationships *between* simultaneously sounding such pitches may be
possible. I think we have demonstrated that. Please point out any fallacies
you see in my "conclusions."
>
> Personally I was pleased by jerry0 and found all the others a little harsher
> and absolutely identical (I am not a professional musician used to
> microtonality, just an amateur chorus singer). So I was puzzled that many
> other members of this forum found differences that I couldn't neither ear
> nor measure ( I do not challenge the fact that the difference may be eared)

Words are sometimes hard to find to describe out aural experiences. One
person's "harsher" is often another person's "interesting." What is likely
in common between such evaluations is that the experiences are "different."
>
> Looking again at the spectrum of those jerries, it appears that:
>
> - the partial peaks are relatively blunt (if compared for instance to
> the sound of a plucked string) so that there is a relatively high level of
> noise between the peaks.
> - there are some antiresonances in the spectrum of the noise. The
> locations of those antiresonnances differs between the jerries.
> - when near a partial the antiresonnance may "push" a little that
> partial up or down (depending if the it is below or above the partial)

Tell me more, please. Perhaps a definition of "antiresonnace" could help.

> So it may be the structure of the background noise that make the difference.
> I know (for having working on the subject in another life) that, in some
> context, the human ear may be sensitive to antiresonnance: that usually
> contribute to the perception of "nasality".

I assume that means something other than what a vocal person would call
"nasality."
>
> I wonder what would have been the results with pure harmonic synthesis
> (tones construct from sines, with extremely sharp partial and no background
> noise).

My impression was that Paul's tones were quite "pure." When I displayed them
as waveforms in my LogicAudio software, they looked *very* symmetrical.

Again, thanks, François.

Jerry

> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:02:54 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
>> --- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...> wrote:
>>
>> Personally I was pleased by jerry0 and found all the others a
>> little harsher and absolutely identical (I am not a professional
>> musician used to microtonality, just an amateur chorus singer). So I
>> was puzzled that many other members of this forum found differences
>> that I couldn't neither ear nor measure ( I do not challenge the fact
>> that the difference may be eared)

I don't remember that "many other members" said much of anything in that
regard, Francois.
>>
>
> ***I guess I should be ashamed to say I had exactly the same
> experience. I h-ear-d no difference at all. In fact, after
> listening to them all, it even made the "just" one sound "wide"
> although I could tell from the lack of beating that it was
> quite "different" from the others...
>
> jp

Why "ashamed," Joe? At least you have the b---s to lay it out there. What
you hear is what you hear. Did you note that I, too, had difficulty in
discriminating those small differences? In order to make sense of the
exercise, I had to manipulate the materials in my sound software.

What is most significant to me is that you heard jerry0 as a "high" third.
That alone helps me to not feel like the "lone ranger." :-)

Jerry

On 3/14/02 3:58 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 17
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 20:27:03 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
>> Next time put them in mp3s and maybe some more people will try it.
>
> there was some concern expressed about the resolution of mp3s last
> time we did things that way.
>
>> Also, make it clear what we are supposed to do with these samples.
>
> you can do whatever you like with them!

While this is true, I personally would like to know whether, in jerry00, you
hear the third differently after the root and fifth drop out. If so, you are
hearing the "high" third. In which case, you may want to try to discern
which of jerries 01 through 07 is closest to the "imagined" third pitch
produced by the JI jerry00.

If you don't hear the JI third differently without the root and third
sounding, I guess you can just sit around and watch. :-)

Thanks, Gene, for your interest. Hope this helps.

Jerry

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

> BTW, I have the time now (since I recently retired from my college
gig) to
> do some reading. Do you remember the sources of your info about
"categorical
> perception"? Who knows? I might even understand some of it.

back at college, i used to sit in the library all day, every day,
reading this stuff -- psychology journals, acoustics journals,
as well as everything in the music library -- unfortunately, this
particular area was not one in which i retained many names and dates.

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/14/02 3:58 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:28:31 -0000
> > From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, it does. But singing a pitch that "agrees" with the
apparent high third
> >> *also* sounds good.
> >
> > what does that mean? aren't you *hearing* your voice, just as
you're
> > *hearing* the ji third in the recording?
>
> Yes. Of course it does. That's the point. My voice seems to be "in
tune"
> with the JI illusionary third.
> >>
> >>> wouldn't singing an
> >>> actual high third result in a psychoacoustic "even higher"
third, and
> >>> therefore sound bad?
> >>
> >> No. That doesn't happen. That's also what makes it so
interesting.
> >> Apparently, the illusionary high third only appears when the
three elements
> >> (root, fifth and third) are in perfect JI tuning (2:3:5, 4:5:6
and possibly
> >> other arrangements). So, when an actual high third is sung into
a perfectly
> >> tuned fifth (2:3) it doesn't produce a "higher" third. It simply
"sounds
> >> good."
> >
> > i can't think of any known or postulated psychoacoustic effect
that
> > would explain an observation like this.
>
> Okay. So let's postulate one. I'm just telling you what I have
experienced.

not exactly -- you're talking about singing 'into' a heard pitch as
if it takes place without hearing, via the same hearing mechanism,
the sung pitch. this sounds like a logical fallacy. and it's in your
*interpretation* of what you experienced -- the experience itself had
to involve a single, coherent hearing mechanism.

> Are Joe and I (and likely thousands of other "believers") simply
mistaken?

joe didn't offer this interpretation at all. he didn't even try
singing into a heard pitch, or anything like that. thousands?

> Interesting to me that you "remember" hearing the high third

i didn't say that. i meant i remember hearing illusory pitch-shift
effects along the lines of what you heard when the root and fifth
dropped out.

> (Paul, why do my nice neat paragraphs turn into chopped liver when
you
> repost them on the list? What browser are you using?

netscape or internet explorer -- it doesn't seem to matter. sorry
about the mess.

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I have the time now (since I recently retired from my
college
> gig) to
> > do some reading. Do you remember the sources of your info about
> "categorical
> > perception"? Who knows? I might even understand some of it.
>
> back at college, i used to sit in the library all day, every day,
> reading this stuff -- psychology journals, acoustics journals,
> as well as everything in the music library -- unfortunately, this
> particular area was not one in which i retained many names and
dates.

let me give you an example of 'categorical perception' at work in a
different context.

the japanese language has no 'l' sound or 'r' sound, but rather a
single sound in-between the two.

people who grow up speaking japanese can't hear the difference
between the english 'l' and 'r' -- they simply hear both as the
single sound they're familiar with.

it's extremely difficult to train native japanese speakers to hear
the difference between what, to us, are completely different sounds.

here's a paper that mentions categorical perception and a bit about
its musical implications for musicians vs. nonmusicians:

http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/rgoldsto/pdfs/perlearn.pdf

here's an interesting paper that relates the possible effect of
categorical perception in a different culture, one where musicians
recognize five, rather than twelve, distinct categories within an
octave:

http://www.inform.umd.edu/EdRes/ReadingRoom/Newsletters/EthnoMusicolo
gy/Archive/cooke-paper

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

> While this is true, I personally would like to know whether, in jerry00, you
> hear the third differently after the root and fifth drop out.

Is *that* what this is all about? I thought we were comparing triads, and jerry0 seems fine. However, yes it does sound as if it goes up in pitch somehow--that's weird.

> Thanks, Gene, for your interest. Hope this helps.

Thanks. I think for experiements like this

(1) The files should be mp3

(2) There should be a text file explaining it all

Mark Gould wrote:
> I'd comment on the psychoacoustic properties of the high third, but, there
> are many on this list who have not done any pschoacoustics, and they
flatly
> refuse to accept that such things exist. It's a shame that this list is
not
> the free discussion area that it should be. Opinions are fine, but I've
> stopped making theoretical comment as obviously four years study of
> acoustics counts for nothing on this list.

Hi Mark, I am still "fresh" on this list and I have not yet been rebuked for
my psychoacoustic or physics comments, so I keep going. I hope some other
people I willing to discuss those topics.

Paul, thanks for your comments. I looked in the archive and found nothing
with those keywords, can you provide me with a message number.
> i made this argument a few months ago here -- search the archives
> for 'classical uncertainty principle'.

Now some other comments and detail on my analysis of the "jerries"

About the "noise"
-----------------

What I named "noise" in the jerries is not white (evenly distributed in
frequency) broadband background noise. When I look at the spectrum of the
jerries, I noted that the resonance where not as sharp as could be expected
for some acoustical sources.

For example, when I look at the spectrum of a (finely recorded) harpsichord,
The peaks stay extremely narrow (less than 1Hz which is the precision of my
measurement) until it disappear in the background noise that may be -60 dB
below ( for the stronger partials).

For the jerries, the peaks broaden around the maximum and is about 15 Hz
wide at -40 dB. That gives a significant amount of non-harmonic energy
between the partials that I named (perhaps abusively) noise. I do not know
if this "noise" is perceptively significant and if so how it is perceived. I
can make the hypothesis that this so called "noise" may give the rugosity
(to not say "harshness" that may be pejorative) that may give the illusion
that the third is not just.
This is just an out-of-the-blue hypothesis.

About just thirds
-----------------
A made some measurement on some renaissance and early baroque a cappella
music recording. I analyzed the "justness" of final major triads and
discovered that, most of the time, they are as 4:5:6 just as can be
measured: the potentially beating partial overlaps completely. I do pretend
to have a 1 cent precision, but the a cappella thirds by trained singers are
seemingly much more like JI than 12ET.

So I was then even more surprised that professional musicians can be fooled
by jerry0. That is the reason why I am trying to formulate some hypothesis.

About antiresonnance
---------------------
Seemingly the jerries where produced by the digital equivalent of a bench of
resonators in parallel. In the frequency domain, there are some frequencies
where two resonators have similar amplitudes: If they are in phase, they
smoothly recover each other and the so called "noise" keeps a smooth
spectrum. If they are in phase opposition, that produce a deep valley in the
spectrum, an antiresonnance. Most of the time, a "hole" in the already low
background noise is not significant. But if this valley is near a peak (a
partial), it "cuts the edge of the mountain" and may move the maximum by (at
most) a few Hz. Is that of any perceptual effect for the jerries?

About "nasality"
----------------
A few years ago, I worked on the perception of nasality in order to improve
the French speaking speech synthesizer. The conclusions where... not
conclusive:
- perception of nasality is associated to antiresonances in the overall
spectrum of speech
- perception of nasality is also associated with the dynamic of the sound
- I could propose empiric rules for synthesis, but no general rules for what
causes "nasality" perception.
Nevertheless, I remember attending a rehearsal of a symphonic orchestra and
the chef asked the cellos to sound "less nasal" and obtained immediately the
change of tone expected!!! Nasality seems to be a general tone quality that
can be applied to non-speech sound.

In conclusion to the conclusion
--------------------------------
To verify if the "noise" and the antiresonances have any effect at all on
the perception of tone, it would be interesting to remake the jerries (at
least jerry0) with pure harmonic synthesis (addition of sine).

yours truly,

Fran�ois Laferri�re

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > While this is true, I personally would like to know whether, in
jerry00, you
> > hear the third differently after the root and fifth drop out.
>
> Is *that* what this is all about? I thought we were comparing
triads, and jerry0 seems fine. However, yes it does sound as if it
goes up in pitch somehow--that's weird.
>

I noticed this a while ago. But try it with the dyads in the chord ---
I find that when a 6:5 plays and the upper note drops out, the lower
seems to rise, but when the 5:4 plays and the lower note drops out,
the upper seems to rise. I can't repeat the experiment right now, so
I don't know if it was interval-related or just a function of whether
the upper or lower tone remained. But I find this "rising" to have a
different quality from a normal increase in pitch. I don't hear any
glissando, it's more like a the difference in a color as it passes
into shade.

Sorry, my message should read:

I noticed this a while ago. But try it with the dyads in the chord ---
> I find that when a 6:5 plays and the upper note drops out, the
lower
> seems to rise, but when the 5:4 plays and the lower note drops out,
> the upper seems to GO DOWN IN PITCH. I can't repeat the experiment
right now, so
> I don't know if it was interval-related or just a function of
whether
> the upper or lower tone remained. But I find this "rising" to have
a
> different quality from a normal increase in pitch. I don't hear any
> glissando, it's more like a the difference in a color as it passes
> into shade.

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35657

> On 3/14/02 3:58 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:33:01 -0000
> > From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35629
> >
> >>
> >> #0 : 386.314¢
> >> #7 : 403.442
> >> #1 : 403.642
> >> #4 : 403.842
> >> #2 : 404.042
> >> #6 : 404.242
> >> #5 : 404.442
> >> #3 : 404.642
> >>
> >> i wonder, if i had made examples even closer to #0, if you guys
> > would have preferred those over #7 and #4 . . .
> >
> > ***Hi Paul!
> >
> > I was just thinking that upon looking at these numbers. For me,
> > there was a "big jump" from a chord that didn't beat to all the
> > others, which seemed very similar and had about the same
frequency of
> > beats. I still don't know why #0 didn't sound "just" to me. It
> > seemed much larger and Jerry, I believe, had a similar reaction,
at
> > least one time through. Could it have been the timbre? Though I
> > doubt that...
> >
> > This would be a good one for "penny pinchers" ...
> >
> > jp
> >
> Hi Joe,
>
> Pardon the intrusion (since your post is addressed to Paul), but I
think I
> can help. I had the "similar reaction" (high third) *every* time
through. I
> later assumed it was JI because it didn't "beat" the way the others
did.
> This was verified by jerry00 (in the requested modifications) when
the
> exposed third at the end of the example took a dive. Did you get
the same
> perceptions?
>
> Did you read my long (sorry 'bout that) post in which I concluded
that the
> "high third" stems from a psycho-acoustic phenomenon? I think that
should
> help to shed some light on your question. If not, I'll try again.
>
> Thanks for being involved in all of this. I appreciate your input.
Please
> stay with us.
>
> Jerry

***Hi Jerry!
Yes, I *did* read your message and was very interested in it.
However, it was obviously a great leap to try to apply it to my *own*
reaction... :)

Actually, I was a bit confused by the files that have the tones
going "in and out" so I should probably try them again.

However, there's been a lot going on on this end, and I've forgotten
where these files are presently stored.

Where are they again? I'll give another listen to the "composite"
ones...

jp

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35661

Did you note that I, too, had difficulty in
> discriminating those small differences? In order to make sense of
the exercise, I had to manipulate the materials in my sound software.
>

***Hi Jerry!

Oh! I was slightly confused about that, since I thought you and some
of your relatives/friends, picked a couple that you "liked best" just
by "ear..."

THEN, you did the software/frequency comparisons... at least that's
what I was understanding... ??

> What is most significant to me is that you heard jerry0 as a "high"
third. That alone helps me to not feel like the "lone ranger." :-)
>

***Well, that was indeed "peculiar." But then, why do I hear
most "regular" just intonation thirds at 386 as "smaller??" Was
there something particular in the presentation of *this* one??

(And I mean the samples of the simultaneities, not with the tones
going in and out...??)

??

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > While this is true, I personally would like to know whether, in
jerry00, you
> > hear the third differently after the root and fifth drop out.
>
> Is *that* what this is all about?

not originally, no. this was a new observation made solely on the
basis of these files.

>I thought we were comparing
>triads, and jerry0 seems fine. However, yes it does sound as if it
>goes up in pitch somehow--that's weird.

jerry heard it go down in pitch.

--- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...>
wrote:

> Paul, thanks for your comments. I looked in the archive and found
nothing
> with those keywords,

that's strange -- i tried it and found lots.

> can you provide me with a message number.

29265
29267
29269
29271
29272
29276
29278
29280
29288
29289
29295
29296
29300
29301
29305
29312
29313
29318
29319
29320
29321
29325
29326
29327
29328
29329
29331
29332
29333
29336
29337
29338
29339
29341
29343
29344
29345
29346
29350
29354
29357
29360
29362
29363
...and many more that you may be able to find my simply following the
threads.

> About just thirds
> -----------------
> A made some measurement on some renaissance and early baroque a
cappella
> music recording. I analyzed the "justness" of final major triads
and
> discovered that, most of the time, they are as 4:5:6 just as can be
> measured: the potentially beating partial overlaps completely. I do
pretend
> to have a 1 cent precision, but the a cappella thirds by trained
singers are
> seemingly much more like JI than 12ET.

i think we have a general consensus that this is true for renaissance
and early baroque specializing choirs. however, jerry is claiming
that other choirs, such as his, the los angeles jazz choir, usually
sing a major third *higher* than 12-equal in the context of full
major triads. this is the 'mystery'.

>
> About antiresonnance
> ---------------------
> Seemingly the jerries where produced by the digital equivalent of a
bench of
> resonators in parallel.

i assure you that all i did was to mathematically add the three
waveforms (with double precision), and then quantize to the
requirements of the .wav file.

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> However, there's been a lot going on on this end, and I've
forgotten
> where these files are presently stored.

tuning-math, in the files folder . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "alternativetuning" <alternativetuning@y...>
wrote:
> Sorry, my message should read:
>
> I noticed this a while ago. But try it with the dyads in the chord
---
> > I find that when a 6:5 plays and the upper note drops out, the
> lower
> > seems to rise, but when the 5:4 plays and the lower note drops
out,
> > the upper seems to GO DOWN IN PITCH.

in both cases the pitch that remains moves toward the center.

there is a simple explanation for this. there's a well-known
psychoacoustical phenomenon at work. when the cochlea is
exposed to more than one frequency at once, the pitches are
subjectively `stretched apart' compared to how they sound as
isolated pitches. there are many references in the literature. one
interesting side-effect of this is that pure sine tones often sound a
bit higher than complex tones with the same fundamental frequency
(references below). the phenomenon has also been used to explain the
'octave stretching' effect with respect to the perception of sine
waves -- stretched octaves seem melodically 'in tune'. the idea is
that the 'training' for octaves occurs with exposure to natural
harmonic series, which (due to the multiplicity of notes) are always
accompanied by the 'stretching' effect, and so one expects the
stretch even when the other harmonic series components are absent.
see http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/octstretch.html

************************************************************

Terhardt, E. (1971). Die Tonhöhe Harmonischer Klänge und das
Oktavintervall. Acustica 24, 126-136

The frequencies of a sinusoidal tone and of a complex tone with the
same pitch are slightly different. The investigations show that
usually the pitch of a complex tone is lower than the pitch of
sinusoidal tone of the same (fundamental) frequency. The frequency
ratio corresponding to the subjectively correct pitch interval of a
musical octave usually differs slightly from the value 2. This
phenomenon was investigated with low pure tones and with complex
tones. The results for complex tones are explained by the octave
intervals that were found with simple tones and the pitch differences
between simple and complex tones.

These conclusions were revisited here:

Terhardt, E., Grubert, A. (1987). Factors affecting pitch judgments
as a function of spectral composition. Percept. Psychophys. 42, 511-
514

Stimulated by a recent paper by Platt & Racine [Perception &
Psychophysics 38, 543-553 (1985)], we discuss the factors that
probably are involved in certain inconsistencies observed in pitch
judgments of tones with different spectral composition. Typically,
discrepancies reported in the literature are of the order of 10 cents
in magnitude. We point out that measurement of such small pitch
effects is heavily dependent on systematic individual differences;
and, when individual differences are averaged out (as is essentially
the case in Platt & Racine's experiments), verification of the actual
auditory stimulus SPL within a few dB is necessary. Utilizing the
virtual-pitch theory, we evaluate the effects of frequency, SPL, and
earphone frequency response. Further, we present experimental and
theoretical data on pitch of piano tones relevant to the problem. The
study elucidates that, taking into account the factors mentioned,
agreement between the various data considered, as well as theoretical
understanding, actually is much better than may have become apparent
on first sight.

In Terhardt, E. (1998). Akustische Kommunikation - Grundlagen mit
Hörbeispielen. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg. 505 S. ISBN 3-540-63408-
8, pp. 353-356 describe how, in many cases, the pitch of the harmonic
complex tone turns out to be slightly lower than that of the pure
tone.

Webster, J.C., Miller, P.H., Thompson, P.O., Davenport, E.W. (1952).
The masking and pitch shifts of pure tones near abrupt changes in a
thermal noise spectrum J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 24, 147-152

When a pure tone is mixed with a noise of uniform spectrum, its
threshold is sraised. At levels above threshold, its loudness and
pitch are changed by the presence of the noise. Introducing abrupt
changes in the slope of the noise spectrum by filtering out
(rejecting) one octave changes these effects in the vicinity of this
gap. The masked threshold for a pure tone varies from the value for
unfiltered noise at the edges of the gap to a value approximately 25
dB lower at the middle. This indicates that gappedi-noise may be used
to mask out sounds outside of the gap without unduly raising the
threshold of sounds in the gap. Presence of white noise generally
raises the pitch of a pure tone whose frequency is between 500 and
4000 cps. Presence of noise with the gap does not raise the pitch of
a pure tone located in the upper half of the gap. For a tone located
in the lower half of the gap, the pitch is raised more than it would
be in the presence of unfiltered noise. The changes in the judged
loudnessof pure tones partially masked by a gapped-noise reaffirm the
importance of the tails of the excitation pattern in their effect on
loudness.

Webster, J.C., Schubert, E.D. (1954). Pitch shifts accompanying
certain auditory threshold shifts. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 26, 754-758

A method was developed for getting a continuous and running record of
pitch matches between the two ears ...

Ten music students made these pitch matches (90 matches per octave)
from 150 to 9600 cps. In the ear in which the standard tone was heard
various types of hearing loss were simulated by masking noises. The
pitch tended to shift away from a region of hearing loss to a region
of no, or less hearing loss. Downward shifts were observed but were
never as marked as the upward shifts.

Allanson, J.T., Schenkel, K.D. (1965). The effect of band-limited
noise ond the pitch of pure tones. J. Sound Vib. 2, 402-408

An investigation has been made of the effect of a band of noise, one-
third of an octave wide, on the perceived pitch of a pure tone. In
general, the pitch was found to "move away" from the interfering
noise. However, in contrast with the results of erlier workers, the
shifts in pitch were found to be quite small and it is suggested that
this may be due to the difference in experimental procedures

On 3/15/02 5:32 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 12
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:57:32 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> While this is true, I personally would like to know whether, in jerry00, you
>> hear the third differently after the root and fifth drop out.
>
> Is *that* what this is all about? I thought we were comparing triads, and
> jerry0 seems fine. However, yes it does sound as if it goes up in pitch
> somehow--that's weird.
>
>> Thanks, Gene, for your interest. Hope this helps.
>
> Thanks. I think for experiements like this
>
> (1) The files should be mp3
>
> (2) There should be a text file explaining it all

Gene:

It's a little hard to explain what we don't really know. I've tried to be
clear in my overly long posts as to what we're looking for. But that may be
difficult to grab when jumping in late. That's one reason why I try to leave
as much of the prior conversation as seems helpful in my current posts.

We tried to explore this topic last year. Those who were here would have a
better idea of what our present goal is. However, in my opinion, Paul has
pulled the thing together this year in a much more effective way. By looking
"inside" a one-cent difference, I think we're on to something.

Simply stated (I hope), we're looking for the "exact" relative frequency
that will sound "in tune" with what we (I, at least) believe is an
illusionary "high third" produced by finely tuning the major triad in JI.

Regarding mp3, I'm not the guy to comment. My understanding is that mp3 is
sorta "stripped down" for speed. It may be subject to "categorical
perception." (Do you like that, Paul?)

Jerry

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

> Simply stated (I hope), we're looking for the "exact" relative frequency
> that will sound "in tune" with what we (I, at least) believe is an
> illusionary "high third" produced by finely tuning the major triad in JI.

When do you hear a high third--Paul says you hear it go down, not up, when the root cuts out, so you hear it high when the chord is playing?

> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 10:33:05 +0100
> From: LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@cegetel.fr>
> Subject: RE: Jerries: a conclusion or two

François, I'm delighted that you have taken the time to help with this
project. Having only a smattering of audio experience, I'll read your posts
like a hungry sponge. Hopefully, my questions will not be too naïve.

Jerry

>
> About the "noise"
> -----------------
>
> What I named "noise" in the jerries is not white (evenly distributed in
> frequency) broadband background noise. When I look at the spectrum of the
> jerries, I noted that the resonance where not as sharp as could be expected
> for some acoustical sources.
>
> For example, when I look at the spectrum of a (finely recorded) harpsichord,
> The peaks stay extremely narrow (less than 1Hz which is the precision of my
> measurement) until it disappear in the background noise that may be -60 dB
> below ( for the stronger partials).
>
> For the jerries, the peaks broaden around the maximum and is about 15 Hz
> wide at -40 dB. That gives a significant amount of non-harmonic energy
> between the partials that I named (perhaps abusively) noise. I do not know
> if this "noise" is perceptively significant and if so how it is perceived. I
> can make the hypothesis that this so called "noise" may give the rugosity
> (to not say "harshness" that may be pejorative) that may give the illusion
> that the third is not just.
> This is just an out-of-the-blue hypothesis.

When you say "the jerries," do you mean all of them. Only jerry00 is JI. The
others would naturally contain some dissonance since their thirds are not in
small-number agreement with the other elements. Is there a difference in
"rugosity" (nice word) between jerry00 and the others?
>
> About just thirds
> -----------------
> A made some measurement on some renaissance and early baroque a cappella
> music recording. I analyzed the "justness" of final major triads and
> discovered that, most of the time, they are as 4:5:6 just as can be
> measured: the potentially beating partial overlaps completely. I do pretend
> to have a 1 cent precision, but the a cappella thirds by trained singers are
> seemingly much more like JI than 12ET.
>
> So I was then even more surprised that professional musicians can be fooled
> by jerry0. That is the reason why I am trying to formulate some hypothesis.
>
I'm not sure I like your word "fooled." But then...who knows? That may be
what we ultimately conclude. (Something tells me that Paul would accept such
a bottom line as that with more grace than I would.)

> About antiresonnance
> ---------------------
> Seemingly the jerries where produced by the digital equivalent of a bench of
> resonators in parallel. In the frequency domain, there are some frequencies
> where two resonators have similar amplitudes: If they are in phase, they
> smoothly recover each other and the so called "noise" keeps a smooth
> spectrum. If they are in phase opposition, that produce a deep valley in the
> spectrum, an antiresonnance. Most of the time, a "hole" in the already low
> background noise is not significant. But if this valley is near a peak (a
> partial), it "cuts the edge of the mountain" and may move the maximum by (at
> most) a few Hz. Is that of any perceptual effect for the jerries?

Paul?
>
> About "nasality"
> ----------------
> A few years ago, I worked on the perception of nasality in order to improve
> the French speaking speech synthesizer. The conclusions where... not
> conclusive:
> - perception of nasality is associated to antiresonances in the overall
> spectrum of speech
> - perception of nasality is also associated with the dynamic of the sound
> - I could propose empiric rules for synthesis, but no general rules for what
> causes "nasality" perception.
> Nevertheless, I remember attending a rehearsal of a symphonic orchestra and
> the chef asked the cellos to sound "less nasal" and obtained immediately the
> change of tone expected!!! Nasality seems to be a general tone quality that
> can be applied to non-speech sound.

In singing, "nasal resonance" is a good thing, and gives warmth and
flexibility to vocal tone. What is often called a "nasal tone," however, is
a closing off of the nasal passages (like speaking while holding your nose).
I have no idea what a cellist would do to effect such a change.

Incidentally, directors of musical ensembles often request changes in style
by using such words as "nasal," "bright," "spooky," "mournful," etc., and
players and singers simply read their minds and do something different from
what they were doing--generally with good results. In most cases, the
performers (and conductor) might have some difficulty in saying exactly what
they did to effect the change.
>
> In conclusion to the conclusion
> --------------------------------
> To verify if the "noise" and the antiresonances have any effect at all on
> the perception of tone, it would be interesting to remake the jerries (at
> least jerry0) with pure harmonic synthesis (addition of sine).

Is that an offer? If so, I suggest you use the format of jerry00--from the
second series of jerries in which the third comes in later than the root and
fifth and sustains after the root and fifth drop out.

Thanks again for your help on this, François.

Jerry

On 3/15/02 5:32 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>>
>>> While this is true, I personally would like to know whether, in jerry00, you
>>> hear the third differently after the root and fifth drop out.
>>
>> Is *that* what this is all about? I thought we were comparing triads, and
>>jerry0 seems fine. However, yes it does sound as if it goes up in pitch
>>somehow--that's weird.
>>
>
> I noticed this a while ago. But try it with the dyads in the chord ---
> I find that when a 6:5 plays and the upper note drops out, the lower
> seems to rise, but when the 5:4 plays and the lower note drops out,
> the upper seems to rise. I can't repeat the experiment right now, so
> I don't know if it was interval-related or just a function of whether
> the upper or lower tone remained. But I find this "rising" to have a
> different quality from a normal increase in pitch. I don't hear any
> glissando, it's more like a the difference in a color as it passes
> into shade.

I find it very interesting that you perceive the difference to be a *rise*
in pitch. Just to be sure we're on the same page, are you referring to a
rise in pitch of the third just as the root and fifth drop out?

I don't hear any glissando, either. It simply changes just as it finds "open
space." To my ear it drops in pitch. (Which is not to say I think you should
hear it that way, too.) I like your analogy that is "passes into shade."
Maybe that's why I hear it "going down" -- as in getting darker. Hmmm?

At this point, I'm not discounting anything. Thanks, Gene.

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > ************************************************************
> >
> > Terhardt, E. (1971). Die Tonhöhe Harmonischer Klänge und das
> > Oktavintervall. Acustica 24, 126-136
> >
> > The frequencies of a sinusoidal tone and of a complex tone with
the
> > same pitch are slightly different. The investigations show that
> > usually the pitch of a complex tone is lower than the pitch of
> > sinusoidal tone of the same (fundamental) frequency. The
frequency
> > ratio corresponding to the subjectively correct pitch interval of
a
> > musical octave usually differs slightly from the value 2. This
> > phenomenon was investigated with low pure tones and with complex
> > tones. The results for complex tones are explained by the octave
> > intervals that were found with simple tones and the pitch
> differences
> > between simple and complex tones.
>
>
> I'm sure this is very dependent upon what range the chords are
being
> sounded in too.

there are no chords being sounded. these are comparisons of single
pitches and terhardt of course is talking about *melodic*, not
*harmonic* octaves.

good to "see" ya, jacky!

Thank you Paul for the reference on "Classical Uncertainty Principle", I am
probably simply incompetent at using the yahoo group search engine. From my
early experiment on a cappella singing experiment, I would like to add a few
comment about the precision of measure versus length of chords. You wrote in
mess. 29265

> Much has been made of the 3- and 4- cent deviations from JI in 72-tET
> chords. At a typical musical frequency of 440Hz, 4 cents is a 1Hz
> deviation. So the classical uncertainty principle would seem to say
> that, for frequency to be determined to better than this accuracy,
> the note would have to be played for 2*pi, or over 6 seconds! Clearly
> most music has melodies and even chord changes that are much faster
> than this. Thus any attempt to say whether the chords were in JI or
> in 72-tET would be meaningless.
>
> Rebuttals?

That is in fact a bit too rigid. It is possible to cheat by taking benefit
of the harmonicity of most acoustical instrument (including human voice). If
instead of taking spectral measure on the fundamental frequency, using the
Nth harmonics, it is possible to increase relative accuracy by N: for
instance 1Hz at 440Hz (F0) is 4cents, but it become 2cents at 880Hz (F1),
1.3 cents at 1320Hz (F2), 1.0 cent at 1760 (F3) and so on.

Theoretically, it is possible to reach an astonishing 0.12cents accuracy at
15000Hz (average perception threshold for adults)!! In practice, when I used
this trick on human voice, I realized that only a few harmonics are sharp
enough to provide accurate measurement. In best cases, after F2 or F3,
widening of harmonics overweight the potential gain in relative precision.
Further, for even the simplest chords, it is difficult to resolve who's who
in the beating harmonics.

On the other hand side, if, again, I looked at harpsichord notes, and can
see that all the harmonics keep the same sharpness up to at least F30; so
even 1Hz accuracy is probably sufficient to measure and compute the tuning
from an occurrence of a single chromatic scale.

I ought to realize that human voices are produced by soft tissues, and so,
cannot be as precise as a string stretched over a rigid wooden box.

Further (and now it is more a matter of opinion than measurement), I think
that the perception of whether or not two notes are "in tune" depends mostly
of their first beating harmonics, i.e. F1/F0 for octave, F2/F1 for fifth,
F3/F2 for the fourth, F4/F3 for the major third and so on. higher beating
harmonics produces beat of lesser amplitude at an integer multiple of the
first beat, so make a quite subtle modulation to the perceived beat. Thus I
think that for the figures above (440+-1Hz) we are (optimistically) limited
to a precision worse than a cent.

About just thirds
-----------------
I wrote:
> > A made some measurement on some renaissance and early baroque a
cappella
> > music recording. I analyzed the "justness" of final major triads and
> > discovered that, most of the time, they are as 4:5:6 just as can be
> > measured: the potentially beating partial overlaps completely. I do
pretend
> > to have a 1 cent precision, but the a cappella thirds by trained singers
are
> > seemingly much more like JI than 12ET.

Paul replied:
> i think we have a general consensus that this is true for renaissance
> and early baroque specializing choirs. however, jerry is claiming
> that other choirs, such as his, the los angeles jazz choir, usually
> sing a major third *higher* than 12-equal in the context of full
> major triads. this is the 'mystery'.

I used renaissance and early baroque corpus because I want to start simple.
A cappella remove the influence of rigidly tuned instrument. Early music
specialized choirs or vocal ensemble use generally very small vibrato; as
vibrato blurs the pitch, it makes accurate measurement nearly impossible for
reasonably long chords (beware, I do not say that early music specialist are
more just! there are just easier to take measure from!).

If you can provide me with MP3 sample of chords, I may try to give an
opinion.

about high third
----------------

I wrote:
> > For the jerries, the peaks broaden around the maximum and is about 15 Hz
> > wide at -40 dB. That gives a significant amount of non-harmonic energy
> > between the partials that I named (perhaps abusively) noise. I do not
know
> > if this "noise" is perceptively significant and if so how it is
perceived. I
> > can make the hypothesis that this so called "noise" may give the
rugosity
> > (to not say "harshness" that may be pejorative) that may give the
illusion
> > that the third is not just.
> > This is just an out-of-the-blue hypothesis.

Gerald replied:
> When you say "the jerries," do you mean all of them. Only jerry00 is JI.
The
> others would naturally contain some dissonance since their thirds are not
in
> small-number agreement with the other elements. Is there a difference in
> "rugosity" (nice word) between jerry00 and the others?

Yes all of them have broad resonances instead of sharp peak seen on rigidly
tuned acoustic instrument.

Psychoacoustic sources cited by Paul may support the hypothesis that what I
identified as "noise" may be responsible for the perceptual stretching of
the third.

I am really sorry about that, but I do no perceived any high third in
jerry00. I heard that the others are out of tune but I cannot say if the
thirds are high or low. It is probably a bias due to the practice of amateur
chorus; when something goes wrong, there is hardly anything like a high
third: there is always somebody too low :-)

about nasality
----------------

Thinking again about it, I would back off about what I said. Antiresonances
responsible of "nasality" concerns the overall the spectral envelope, not
tiny detail occurring between partial.

about antiresonance
--------------------
I wrote:
> > Seemingly the jerries where produced by the digital equivalent of a
bench of
> > resonators in parallel.

Paul wrote:
> i assure you that all i did was to mathematically add the three
> waveforms (with double precision), and then quantize to the
> requirements of the .wav file.

Sorry for being too much technical. Adding waveforms is equivalent to put
three sources in parallel. At the crossing frequency between F0-fund and
F0-third, and also between F0-third and F0-fifth, there is a drop in
amplitude, i.e. an antiresonnance. This antiresonance would disappear if
instead of adding W1+W2+W3, invert the phase of W2 i.e. W1-W2+W3. If (as I
suspect) the resulting wave sounds the same as the original, all the fuss I
made about antiresonance is rubbish.

Nevertheless, the broadness of the partial (and the so called "noise")
remains an issues. By the way, how did you produce each of the three tones?

Inconclusively
----------------
I wrote:
> > To verify if the "noise" and the antiresonances have any effect at all
on
> > the perception of tone, it would be interesting to remake the jerries
(at
> > least jerry0) with pure harmonic synthesis (addition of sine).

Gerald wrote:
> Is that an offer? If so, I suggest you use the format of jerry00--from the
> second series of jerries in which the third comes in later than the root
and
> fifth and sustains after the root and fifth drop out.

In fact I have not the tools nor the time to do so for the moment, but I
keep that in a drawer of my mind.

yours truly

Fran�ois Laferri�re

--- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...>
wrote:

> Sorry for being too much technical. Adding waveforms is equivalent
to put
> three sources in parallel. At the crossing frequency between F0-
fund and
> F0-third, and also between F0-third and F0-fifth, there is a drop
in
> amplitude, i.e. an antiresonnance.

can you clarify what you mean by 'crossing frequency'? and . . . a
drop in amplitude of what?

> This antiresonance would disappear if
> instead of adding W1+W2+W3, invert the phase of W2 i.e. W1-W2+W3.

i used random phases.

>If (as I
> suspect) the resulting wave sounds the same as the original, all
the fuss I
> made about antiresonance is rubbish.
>
> Nevertheless, the broadness of the partial (and the so
called "noise")
> remains an issues. By the way, how did you produce each of the
three tones?

the noise and broadness appear to be artifacts of your analysis,
and/or of the quantization. i used matlab to create tones several
hundred thousand samples in length. i randomized the phases and added
them together, then converted to .wav file.

if you'd try a test of producing the tones yourself, then applying
the same analysis, you'd see what artifacts your analysis produces.

On 3/18/02 3:16 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:57:19 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>

>>>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> Pardon the intrusion (since your post is addressed to Paul), but I think I
>> can help. I had the "similar reaction" (high third) *every* time through. I
>> later assumed it was JI because it didn't "beat" the way the others did.
>> This was verified by jerry00 (in the requested modifications) when the
>> exposed third at the end of the example took a dive. Did you get the same
>> perceptions?
>>
>> Did you read my long (sorry 'bout that) post in which I concluded that the
>> "high third" stems from a psycho-acoustic phenomenon? I think that should
>> help to shed some light on your question. If not, I'll try again.
>>
>> Thanks for being involved in all of this. I appreciate your input. Please
>> stay with us.
>>
>> Jerry
>
>
> ***Hi Jerry!
> Yes, I *did* read your message and was very interested in it.
> However, it was obviously a great leap to try to apply it to my *own*
> reaction... :)

Obviously? In understanding my descriptions or in hearing what I had
described. Apparently, you already "heard" the high third in jerry0. Hearing
it in jerry00 should sound about the same to you (at least until the root
and fifth drop out. Why do you think it to be a "great leap"?
>
> Actually, I was a bit confused by the files that have the tones
> going "in and out" so I should probably try them again.

Like the first set of jerries, the first item is a JI triad. All of the
others contain a third considerably higher. The point of the exercise is to
select the one that "sounds" like the "apparent tuning" of the "high third"
in jerry00.
>
> However, there's been a lot going on on this end, and I've forgotten
> where these files are presently stored.

I don't remember. I downloaded them and have been working with those.
>
> Where are they again? I'll give another listen to the "composite"
> ones...

You may want to wait for Paul's next series. Since we (me and my friends and
relatives) seemed to agree on certain ones, Paul is going to create these
next ones in that vicinity and hopefully he can "nail" it.

Later, Jerry

On 3/18/02 3:16 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:05:03 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
>> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Did you note that I, too, had difficulty in
>> discriminating those small differences? In order to make sense of
>> the exercise, I had to manipulate the materials in my sound software.
>>
>
> ***Hi Jerry!
>
> Oh! I was slightly confused about that, since I thought you and some
> of your relatives/friends, picked a couple that you "liked best" just
> by "ear..."

Yes. We seemed to agree on our favorites; however, I was curious about what
Paul had put together, particularly the range of difference between the
"high" jerries. He was asking me for me responses in cents and I was pretty
sure that they *all* were not more than a cent different. It turns out I was
right. It also turned out that I was right in that they were in fact
different from each other--which was also verified by the fact that we all
"liked" a certain one best.
>
> THEN, you did the software/frequency comparisons... at least that's
> what I was understanding... ??

Yes. I did that *after* selecting a "favorite." It had mostly to do with
comparing the thirds as single tones to each other and to jerry00 without
the beating of their own roots and fifths.
>
>> What is most significant to me is that you heard jerry0 as a "high"
>> third. That alone helps me to not feel like the "lone ranger." :-)
>>
> ***Well, that was indeed "peculiar." But then, why do I hear
> most "regular" just intonation thirds at 386 as "smaller??" Was
> there something particular in the presentation of *this* one?? (And I mean the
> samples of the simultaneities, not with the tones going in and out...??)

I, too, hear the dyad 4:5 as "smaller" than 400. I only hear the "high
third" when it is sounding with *both* the root and fifth, and only when
they are well-tuned. This is verified by my singers--both pro and novice.
They sing the "low third" when asked to tune to the root alone; they sing
the "high third" when both the root and fifth are sounding.

Incidentally, experienced singers can sing the "high third" at will, even in
a dyad (when the fifth is not sounding), but I think that is because they
know from experience what it sounds like.
>
Hope this is helpful.

Jerry

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

> Incidentally, experienced singers can sing the "high third" at will, even in
> a dyad (when the fifth is not sounding), but I think that is because they
> know from experience what it sounds like.

I can't even hear the "high third", and you can't prove by me there is such a phenomenon. The other jerries just seem sharp, and if the fifth drops out they seem to go down in pitch if anything. The third on jerry0 doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything, and I've been lost by this whole discussion.

Hi, everyone! My apologies for not hanging around here lately, but
I've been terribly busy with music and life in general. Paul E. had
once mentioned to me in an offline email something about this fellow
with the jazz choir that likes high thirds. I will call them "supra-
ET" thirds.

I agree that the best renaissance a cappella choirs sing just thirds.
The ones that don't are simply demonstrating relative incompetence
vis-a-vis those that do. Renaissance a cappella music is very triadic
in its harmonic strucuture; meantone temperaments with pure or quasi-
pure thirds were the order of the day; so it is natural to sing that
music with just thirds.

My reaction to the "supra-ET" thirds in the jazz chorus and the
renaissance choirs' contrast with that is simple:

Jazz harmonies contain harmonic extensions such as 7ths, 9ths, and
13ths (sixths if in close-voiced "6th-9th chords"). Many such chords,
especially the "6th-9th" chords just mentioned, can be voiced open
in "stacked fourths" and variations of them such as stacked fourths
with a third on top or an augmented fourth on the bottom (which is
the 7th with resepect to the root, the latter of which is generally
on top in this kind of voicing (e.g. Bb, E, A, D, G, C, which in
close-voicing with the root at the bottom is C, E, G, Bb, D with an A
thrown in somewhere, but this voicing is not conducive to the
presence of the A as "sixth" or "thirteenth").

Now we all know that fifths (and fourths, by implication) and thirds
are not mutually compatible in terms of just tuning. They must be
traded off with each other. In the renaissance, the tradeoff
sacrificed the fifths and fourths for the thirds and sixths.

In stacked fourth voicings and any other voicings in jazz harmony
with equivalent or similar harmonic extensions, a series of fourths
or fifths that are 5+ cents flat sound terribly flacid, wimpy and
unconvincing, with none of the sought-for jazzy "bite" and sonority.
This means the thirds in this context want to get sacrificed for the
fourths and fifths, so ET works well here.

However, I think the spread of ET as an almost universal tuning
standard in our culture is partially responsible for the evolution of
these harmonies in the first place. There were some influences from
impressionism in France that pushed this evolution, but those
influences had not just a little 12-tET behind them, too.

Now, in a flexibly pitched ensemble such as an a cappella jazz choir,
even the other side of ET toward Pythagorean may sound better still
to many ears, trading off even further in favor of the fourths and
fifths. But then, barbershop quartets often sing very complex jazz
harmonies that still tend toward JI when the quartet is really good
and well-steeped in that tradition, a tradition that largely went for
very pure, sweet harmonies. Here, I would say, in stark contradicton
to opinions I have expressed in other non-medieval contexts, I have
to agree that it is a matter of taste.

Cheers to all,

Bob

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

> Like the first set of jerries, the first item is a JI triad. All of the
> others contain a third considerably higher. The point of the exercise is to
> select the one that "sounds" like the "apparent tuning" of the "high third"
> in jerry00.

that may be the point of the exercise to you, but to me the above makes no sense, if you'll pardon me for saying so. you're always hearing 'apparent tuning', you're never hearing true frequencies or whatever your abstract standard may be. so there is no possibility for ever comparing the two. one can compare frequencies to frequencies, and apparent pitches to apparent pitches, and various psychoacoustical phenomena, such as the one's i've been talking about lately, can be discovered, described, and sometimes quantified in the laboratory thanks to these comparisons.

sorry to interrupt,
paul

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

>The other jerries just seem sharp, and if the
>fifth drops out they seem to go down in pitch if anything.

this observation seems to support the whole 'stretching' and 'pushing' cochlear phenomenon that i was speaking about earlier. frequencies 'push' each other apart (more properly, they move one another's subjective *pitches* apart) when presented simultaneously. a highest or lowest frequency in a chord, if the rest of the chord is then removed, is perceived as moving toward the center of the chord. in addition to what i've already written, it is known that different people respond differently, and even different *ears* on a single person repsond differently in this phenomenon.

On 3/18/02 3:16 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:40:49 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1969
>
I had said:

>> It doesn't seem to happen when the elements are not well-tuned, as when
>>played on a 12t-ET keyboard. Don't you think that's significant?
>
> it may be significant, but i still can't see how to explain it, aside
> from categorical perception at work. more tests will help.
>
I think so, too. BTW, I suspect that the concept that gives rise to this
particular categorical perception is likely learned from experiencing the
high third--be it physical or psychological. Because it is so widely
experienced, it seems worth our efforts.

---------

>>> you're talking about singing 'into' a heard pitch as
>>> if it takes place without hearing, via the same hearing mechanism,
>>> the sung pitch. this sounds like a logical fallacy. and it's in your
>>> *interpretation* of what you experienced -- the experience itself had
>>> to involve a single, coherent hearing mechanism.
>>
>> Are you saying that one can't hear two things at the same time?
>
> sure you can -- but you use the same auditory mechanism to hear both
> things. so any psychoacoustical effects which affect one will have to
> affect the other as well.

Exactly. And that is important to my thinking: in that the high third is
heard only in the context I have described. We can "dissect" it
intellectually by comparing the experience to ones similar in significant
ways. We hear two pitches not only as "two pitches" but as a "relationship
of two pitches" (assuming we have already stored an appropriate concept by
which to recognize it). The same for triads, of course. And that is what we
are dealing with here: a *single* categorical perception of a particular
experience that "should" correspond to a related one (perception of a 4:5
major third) but for some strange reason *doesn't*.
>
>> The phrase
>> "singing in tune" implies adjusting one's voice to "fit" with another sound
>> source. That's what I did in this case. I repeat: when I sang "my version"
>> of the JI third with jerry00 there was no pitch difference in our thirds
>> when the root and fifth dropped out; but when I sang the high third (which
>> *also* tuned with the apparent high third being produced by the JI triad)
>
> this is what is strange. are you saying that if you sang anything
> *between* these two values, it *wouldn't* fit with the chord, but
> these two values (about 18 cents apart) both *do* fit with the chord?

That is what I'm saying (and have been saying, in my mind, since the
beginning). That's why I refer to it as "the" high third. There is a "place"
where it should go. As I said, when my brother sang "his" high third, it
tuned exactly (in my perception) as where I would have tuned it. That's why
just any old "high third" doesn't make it. That's why we were less happy
with most of the other jerries. I said earlier that I've probably heard most
of those tunings, but that should not be read to mean that I think they are
"the" high third. Singers can be "out of tune" when singing a unison or when
singing a third--even a "high" one.

> if true, we're both very far from postulating any kind of reasonable
> explanation for this. we should at least conduct more tests to verify
> this (if you believe it's true).

That might be a good thing to do. First, though, I think it would be good to
see if you can "nail" a jerry that matches my "categorical perception" of a
high third. Once we know what it is in physical terms, we might be better
able to test it psychologically.

> right now, i'm hesitant to believe
> that the heard interval is a non-monotonic function of the actual
> interval, or anything as 'twisted' as that.

Watch your language, Paul. There may be children on this list! (Besides me.)
What--pray tell--is a non-monotonic function?

-------------------------
>
>> What are we missing here? I did two different things which produced two
>> different results. Are you suggesting that I didn't? If so, what created the
>> dissonance in the second case? Interpretation? I don't think so.
>
> i think we're talking past each other. i'm not doubting that you sang
> a lower and then a higher third. obviously, the higher third would
> have produced beating against the .wav files' lower third. before we
> get mad, let's remember that communication is not always that easy
> here.

Mad? Not even a little bit. That paragraph was intended to clarify, not to
inflame. I just haven't heard (seen) that you have acknowledged this data. I
see now that you have, so the paragraph served it's purpose. Incidentally, I
have no illusions regarding the difficulty of communication--particularly in
matters that only one of us has first hand experience with. I'm grateful
that you are willing to explore this with me (and us) in order to get closer
to a reasonable description (if not a reasonable explanation).
>
> i'm sticking with my categorical perception hypothesis for now,
> essentially the same hypothesis i offered two years ago.
>
Yes. But we're in a whole 'nother place than we were a hear ago. For
example, we're not talking "cents" here (no wise cracks, please) anymore.
That's a big improvement.

I'm buying your categorical perception hypothesis. I just think we need to
fine tune it. The question in my mind is: what is the basis for the
commonplace experiences that give rise to the concepts by which musicians
(young and old) "recognize" (and/or produce) a specific high third (in
context).

Once we identify it with additional jerries (hopefully), we can think about
testing it on a broader population than just me and a few friends.

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> Hi, everyone! My apologies for not hanging around here lately, but
> I've been terribly busy with music and life in general. Paul E. had
> once mentioned to me in an offline email something about this fellow
> with the jazz choir that likes high thirds. I will call them "supra-
> ET" thirds.
>
> I agree that the best renaissance a cappella choirs sing just thirds.
> The ones that don't are simply demonstrating relative incompetence
> vis-a-vis those that do. Renaissance a cappella music is very triadic
> in its harmonic strucuture; meantone temperaments with pure or quasi-
> pure thirds were the order of the day; so it is natural to sing that
> music with just thirds.
>
> My reaction to the "supra-ET" thirds in the jazz chorus and the
> renaissance choirs' contrast with that is simple:
>
> Jazz harmonies contain harmonic extensions such as 7ths, 9ths, and
> 13ths (sixths if in close-voiced "6th-9th chords"). Many such chords,
> especially the "6th-9th" chords just mentioned, can be voiced open
> in "stacked fourths" and variations of them such as stacked fourths
> with a third on top or an augmented fourth on the bottom (which is
> the 7th with resepect to the root, the latter of which is generally
> on top in this kind of voicing (e.g. Bb, E, A, D, G, C, which in
> close-voicing with the root at the bottom is C, E, G, Bb, D with an A
> thrown in somewhere, but this voicing is not conducive to the
> presence of the A as "sixth" or "thirteenth").
>
> Now we all know that fifths (and fourths, by implication) and thirds
> are not mutually compatible in terms of just tuning. They must be
> traded off with each other. In the renaissance, the tradeoff
> sacrificed the fifths and fourths for the thirds and sixths.
>
> In stacked fourth voicings and any other voicings in jazz harmony
> with equivalent or similar harmonic extensions, a series of fourths
> or fifths that are 5+ cents flat sound terribly flacid, wimpy and
> unconvincing, with none of the sought-for jazzy "bite" and sonority.

i can think of an interesting exception -- a chord of stacked fourths such as a m11 chord can sound optimal with fourths as much as 9 cents flat.

> This means the thirds in this context want to get sacrificed for the
> fourths and fifths, so ET works well here.
>
> However, I think the spread of ET as an almost universal tuning
> standard in our culture is partially responsible for the evolution of
> these harmonies in the first place. There were some influences from
> impressionism in France that pushed this evolution, but those
> influences had not just a little 12-tET behind them, too.
>
> Now, in a flexibly pitched ensemble such as an a cappella jazz choir,
> even the other side of ET toward Pythagorean may sound better still
> to many ears, trading off even further in favor of the fourths and
> fifths. But then, barbershop quartets often sing very complex jazz
> harmonies that still tend toward JI when the quartet is really good
> and well-steeped in that tradition, a tradition that largely went for
> very pure, sweet harmonies. Here, I would say, in stark contradicton
> to opinions I have expressed in other non-medieval contexts, I have
> to agree that it is a matter of taste.
>
> Cheers to all,
>
> Bob

i agree with almost everything you said. in fact, coming back to this post in a few years, you could easily convince me that i wrote it myself! :)

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

> Watch your language, Paul. There may be children on this list! (Besides me.)
> What--pray tell--is a non-monotonic function?

one that always increases -- it may speed up or slow down, but an increase in frequency doesn't ever result in a decrease in pitch, does it?

> I'm buying your categorical perception hypothesis. I just think we need to
> fine tune it. The question in my mind is: what is the basis for the
> commonplace experiences that give rise to the concepts by which musicians
> (young and old) "recognize" (and/or produce) a specific high third (in
> context).

my 'null-hypothesis' answer: experience. the point of the 'jerries', to me, is to falsify this null hypothesis, or to fail to do so.

On 3/18/02 3:16 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:43:51 -0000
> From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Simply stated (I hope), we're looking for the "exact" relative frequency
>> that will sound "in tune" with what we (I, at least) believe is an
>> illusionary "high third" produced by finely tuning the major triad in JI.
>
> When do you hear a high third--Paul says you hear it go down, not up, when the
> root cuts out, so you hear it high when the chord is playing?
>
Yes, Gene. Since the illusion (if that's what it is) of a high third seems
to be produced by singing/hearing it in the context of a well-tuned root and
fifth, it seems to me to drop down to a "normal" 4:5 position when the root
and fifth are not sounding.

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

> > Watch your language, Paul. There may be children on this list! (Besides me.)
> > What--pray tell--is a non-monotonic function?
>
> one that always increases -- it may speed up or slow down, but an increase in frequency doesn't ever result in a decrease in pitch, does it?

Eh? That sounds like a monotonically inccreasing function.

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

> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:36:31 +0100
> From: LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@cegetel.fr>
> Subject: RE: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> About just thirds
> -----------------
> I wrote:
>>> A made some measurement on some renaissance and early baroque a cappella
>>> music recording. I analyzed the "justness" of final major triads and
>>> discovered that, most of the time, they are as 4:5:6 just as can be
>>> measured: the potentially beating partial overlaps completely. I do pretend
>>> to have a 1 cent precision, but the a cappella thirds by trained singers are
>>> seemingly much more like JI than 12ET.
>
> Paul replied:
>> i think we have a general consensus that this is true for renaissance
>> and early baroque specializing choirs. however, jerry is claiming
>> that other choirs, such as his, the los angeles jazz choir, usually
>> sing a major third *higher* than 12-equal in the context of full
>> major triads. this is the 'mystery'.
>
> I used renaissance and early baroque corpus because I want to start simple.
> A cappella remove the influence of rigidly tuned instrument. Early music
> specialized choirs or vocal ensemble use generally very small vibrato; as
> vibrato blurs the pitch, it makes accurate measurement nearly impossible for
> reasonably long chords (beware, I do not say that early music specialist are
> more just! there are just easier to take measure from!).

Paul, I wonder if that is why you and others believe the JI third is
peculiar to early music. For what it's worth, most of the choirs I hear and
deal with (both church and college) in virtually all musical styles (unless
singing with an organ) tune final major chords with the the high third
(which, judging from our research here, is probably JI).
>
> If you can provide me with MP3 sample of chords, I may try to give an
> opinion.
>
> about high third
> ----------------
>
> I wrote:
>>> For the jerries, the peaks broaden around the maximum and is about 15 Hz
>>> wide at -40 dB. That gives a significant amount of non-harmonic energy
>>> between the partials that I named (perhaps abusively) noise. I do not know
>>> if this "noise" is perceptively significant and if so how it is perceived. I
>>> can make the hypothesis that this so called "noise" may give the rugosity
>>> (to not say "harshness" that may be pejorative) that may give the illusion
>>> that the third is not just.
>>> This is just an out-of-the-blue hypothesis.
>
> Gerald replied:
>> When you say "the jerries," do you mean all of them. Only jerry00 is JI. The
>> others would naturally contain some dissonance since their thirds are not in
>> small-number agreement with the other elements. Is there a difference in
>> "rugosity" (nice word) between jerry00 and the others?
>
> Yes all of them have broad resonances instead of sharp peak seen on rigidly
> tuned acoustic instrument.

By "broad resonances" are you referring to the rounded tops I see in the
wave form?
>
> Psychoacoustic sources cited by Paul may support the hypothesis that what I
> identified as "noise" may be responsible for the perceptual stretching of
> the third.
>
> I am really sorry about that, but I do no perceived any high third in
> jerry00. I heard that the others are out of tune but I cannot say if the
> thirds are high or low. It is probably a bias due to the practice of amateur
> chorus; when something goes wrong, there is hardly anything like a high
> third: there is always somebody too low :-)

Not sure what this means. My "amateur" college choruses easily learn how to
tune simply by listening to combined pitches *without* the "help" of the
piano. The "somebody too low" is usually a singer who doesn't produce a
flexible tone. That, of course, is another matter.

It will be interesting to see whether Paul's next series of jerries turns up
an "in tune" item. Stay "tuned."
>
----------------

>>> To verify if the "noise" and the antiresonances have any effect at all on
>>> the perception of tone, it would be interesting to remake the jerries (at
>>> least jerry0) with pure harmonic synthesis (addition of sine).
>
>> Gerald wrote:
>> Is that an offer? If so, I suggest you use the format of jerry00--from the
>> second series of jerries in which the third comes in later than the root and
>> fifth and sustains after the root and fifth drop out.
>
> In fact I have not the tools nor the time to do so for the moment, but I
> keep that in a drawer of my mind.

It is certainly possible that all of this will end up in a drawer of my
mind, as well. Thanks for your input, François.

Jerry

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

> Paul, I wonder if that is why you and others believe the JI third is
> peculiar to early music. For what it's worth, most of the choirs I hear and
> deal with (both church and college) in virtually all musical styles (unless
> singing with an organ) tune final major chords with the the high third
> (which, judging from our research here, is probably JI).

If it's high, it's not JI; it surely has to be one or the other.

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35707

>
> I, too, hear the dyad 4:5 as "smaller" than 400. I only hear
the "high third" when it is sounding with *both* the root and fifth,
and only when they are well-tuned. This is verified by my singers--
both pro and novice.

***Hi Jerry!

Hmmm. (I'm not humming, just thinking...)

You know, it almost seems as though this phenomenon should be called
the "high triad" rather than the "high third" since, apparently, it
only occurs in the context of a full triad. I think I might remember
this better that way.... ??

(And yes, your explanation was, as usual, *very* helpful!)

Joe

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35711

>> Now, in a flexibly pitched ensemble such as an a cappella jazz
choir,
> even the other side of ET toward Pythagorean may sound better still
> to many ears, trading off even further in favor of the fourths and
> fifths. But then, barbershop quartets often sing very complex jazz
> harmonies that still tend toward JI when the quartet is really good
> and well-steeped in that tradition, a tradition that largely went
for
> very pure, sweet harmonies. Here, I would say, in stark
contradicton
> to opinions I have expressed in other non-medieval contexts, I have
> to agree that it is a matter of taste.
>
> Cheers to all,
>
> Bob

***Hello Bob!

Well, your argument seems to make sense to *me.* However, I believe
Jerry (of the "jerries") is trying to make a more "generalized"
statement.

He's saying, I believe, that *whenever* one hears a perfectly justly
tuned *triad* one *automatically* hears a HIGH THIRD, in *whatever*
style.

Isn't that correct, "high third" followers...??

Joe

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

> Message: 16
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 22:44:08 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> Hi, everyone! My apologies for not hanging around here lately, but
> I've been terribly busy with music and life in general. Paul E. had
> once mentioned to me in an offline email something about this fellow
> with the jazz choir that likes high thirds. I will call them "supra-
> ET" thirds.

Hi, Bob. Nice to be acknowledged, even in third person. I guess you didn't
see my posts directly intended for you. Welcome back. Good timing!
>
> I agree that the best renaissance a cappella choirs sing just thirds.
> The ones that don't are simply demonstrating relative incompetence
> vis-a-vis those that do. Renaissance a cappella music is very triadic
> in its harmonic strucuture; meantone temperaments with pure or quasi-
> pure thirds were the order of the day; so it is natural to sing that
> music with just thirds.

Here's the issue, Robert. Suppose a "best" choir responsibly and knowingly
sings JI thirds, but "less hip" ears *hear* those JI thirds as "high"
thirds. Does that make the listeners "incompetent"? Suppose those listeners
sing in other choirs and attempt to tune carefully as they re-create the
music of the Renaissance; and in the process those choirs sing the high
thirds they "think" they heard upon listening to the "best" choirs.

Suppose you were able to go back to the Renaissance and actually *hear* what
sort of thirds choirs were singing then. Is it completely out of the realm
of possibility that some of those sixteenth century ears heard a difference
between a third sung with root and third sounding and one sung with root
alone? How would you know? Would you ask them? Would you assume that *they*
would know? Are you sure historians would know for sure?
>
> My reaction to the "supra-ET" thirds in the jazz chorus and the
> renaissance choirs' contrast with that is simple:

Be careful of the word "simple." Simplicity can sometimes be just as
illusive as a the truth about high thirds. I used to think high thirds were
"simply" the only ones anyone used. I don't think that anymore. And, as we
all now know, the world is not "simply" flat.
>
> Jazz harmonies contain harmonic extensions such as 7ths, 9ths, and
> 13ths (sixths if in close-voiced "6th-9th chords"). Many such chords,
> especially the "6th-9th" chords just mentioned, can be voiced open
> in "stacked fourths" and variations of them such as stacked fourths
> with a third on top or an augmented fourth on the bottom (which is
> the 7th with resepect to the root, the latter of which is generally
> on top in this kind of voicing (e.g. Bb, E, A, D, G, C, which in
> close-voicing with the root at the bottom is C, E, G, Bb, D with an A
> thrown in somewhere, but this voicing is not conducive to the
> presence of the A as "sixth" or "thirteenth").

Sounds like a hypothesis worth discussing sometime. Actually, it has nothing
to do with the high third we're talking about here. Here's the set up:

Play a low C and ask the basses to match it. Then ask the women to tune
a tenth above it. Once tuned, compare it to the piano's E and notice that it
is as one would think--slightly below. No surprise.

Then play a low C and ask the basses to match it and ask the tenors to
tune a perfect fifth above it. When the perfect fifth is in evidence, again
ask the women to tune a tenth above the bass. Note that their "third" will
be higher than the piano's third. *Big* surprise!

It works *every* time. I've demonstrated it with my choirs, other people's
choirs, and on the road with choral festival choirs I've never met.

No 7ths, 9ths and 13ths. No 6-9 chords. Just a simple major triad. Just like
in Renaissance endings.
>
> Now we all know that fifths (and fourths, by implication) and thirds
> are not mutually compatible in terms of just tuning. They must be
> traded off with each other. In the renaissance, the tradeoff
> sacrificed the fifths and fourths for the thirds and sixths.

Tradeoff? Huh? Clearly, we *all* don't know this. How do *you* know this?
Makes no sense to me at all. But, I'm all ears! Enlighten me.
>
> In stacked fourth voicings and any other voicings in jazz harmony
> with equivalent or similar harmonic extensions, a series of fourths
> or fifths that are 5+ cents flat sound terribly flacid, wimpy and
> unconvincing, with none of the sought-for jazzy "bite" and sonority.
> This means the thirds in this context want to get sacrificed for the
> fourths and fifths, so ET works well here.

I found that ET didn't work at all for jazz chords. That's why I asked my
rehearsal pianist to stop playing chords while the singers were *seeking*
their tunings. Only when he simply provided bass roots did our hot vocal
chords find their jazzy "bite." By the way, our thirds were not ET; they
were "high." Always! Just like our Renaissance endings.

Whether they were high because they were *sung* high or because they
*sounded* high is what this discussion is all about.

So, there you have it, Robert. Welcome to the discussion.
>
> However, I think the spread of ET as an almost universal tuning
> standard in our culture is partially responsible for the evolution of
> these harmonies in the first place.

I believe ET is the curse of fine tuning in our culture. Train a choir to
sing "piano pitch" and I assure you it will be flat within two minutes
unless the piano is there to bolster it.

> There were some influences from
> impressionism in France that pushed this evolution, but those
> influences had not just a little 12-tET behind them, too.

Gershwin would likely agree with you. But then you should hear what Gershwin
can sound like when sung by pitch-sensitive singers.
>
> Now, in a flexibly pitched ensemble such as an a cappella jazz choir,

The LA Jazz Choir sang with piano, bass and drums. However, the pianist was
always instructed not to comp when the choir was singing harmony and never
to play the same melodic lines the choir was singing. It worked fine. But
you are correct that the vocals were "flexibly pitched," and certainly not
ET (which you suggested above is conducive to jazz tuning).

> even the other side of ET toward Pythagorean may sound better still
> to many ears,

last year, we explored the possibility that the Pythagorean third was the
preferred "high third." We all seemed to agree that it was not. Way too
high.

> trading off even further in favor of the fourths and
> fifths. But then, barbershop quartets often sing very complex jazz
> harmonies that still tend toward JI when the quartet is really good
> and well-steeped in that tradition, a tradition that largely went for
> very pure, sweet harmonies. Here, I would say, in stark contradicton
> to opinions I have expressed in other non-medieval contexts, I have
> to agree that it is a matter of taste.

That's what I thought when I left the list last year. I was pretty much
convinced that taste was all there was to it. I'm no longer convinced. There
is too much agreement among listeners of the jerries to ignore the
possibility that there is a specific "high third" that is learned from
hearing the illusionary high third that generates from the JI triad. Didn't
you say, upon initially hearing jerry00, that you experienced "an apparent
slight drop in pitch when the root and fifth drop out"? Don't look now, Bob,
but I think you may be "in there" with the rest of us.

Jerry

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

> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:54:02 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Like the first set of jerries, the first item is a JI triad. All of the
>> others contain a third considerably higher. The point of the exercise is to
>> select the one that "sounds" like the "apparent tuning" of the "high third"
>> in jerry00.
>
> that may be the point of the exercise to you, but to me the above makes no
> sense, if you'll pardon me for saying so.

I realize that is not where the exercise began, but that is where it has
landed for me at this stage.

> you're always hearing 'apparent
> tuning', you're never hearing true frequencies or whatever your abstract
> standard may be. so there is no possibility for ever comparing the two. one
> can compare frequencies to frequencies, and apparent pitches to apparent
> pitches, and various psychoacoustical phenomena, such as the one's i've been
> talking about lately, can be discovered, described, and sometimes quantified
> in the laboratory thanks to these comparisons.
>
> sorry to interrupt,
> paul

I'm sure by now you realize, Paul, that your "interruptions" are not only
welcome, but are essential to keeping things on track. No apology needed.

Okay, how about this? The point here is to compare various "apparent thirds"
contained in a number of *real* high-third jerries to the "apparent high
third" produced by a JI jerry. And if and when we find an "apparent match,"
we can then think about laboratory testing. How's that?

You didn't mention what *you* see as the point of the exercise. I think it
might be good if you stated it as you see it.

Jerry

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

Didn't
> you say, upon initially hearing jerry00, that you experienced "an apparent
> slight drop in pitch when the root and fifth drop out"? Don't look now, Bob,
> but I think you may be "in there" with the rest of us.

Don't count me in that; it's not what I experience at all.

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35736

> Suppose you were able to go back to the Renaissance and actually
*hear* what sort of thirds choirs were singing then. Is it completely
out of the realm of possibility that some of those sixteenth century
ears heard a difference between a third sung with root and third
sounding and one sung with root alone? How would you know? Would you
ask them? Would you assume that *they* would know? Are you sure
historians would know for sure?
> >

***Hi Jerry!

In the above paragraph, did you mean to say "...ears heard a
difference between a third sung with root and *FIFTH* sounding and
one sung with root alone?"...

Or did you mean exactly what you said??

Thanks!

Joe

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35737

>
> Okay, how about this? The point here is to compare
various "apparent thirds" contained in a number of *real* high-third
jerries to the "apparent high third" produced by a JI jerry.

"JI jerries." Hmmm. Those are a little like "GI Joes," I would
surmise...

jp

Hi, Joe! Thanks for the clarification. I'm basically clueless as to
what this is all about other than what I have posted as having heard,
with a correction to a subjective octave displacement of the third
and a consequent error in estimating the deviation from JI. If you
refer to my first (this is my second) post of today, you will likely
infer (correctly) that I do *NOT* hear any such "high third" in
Jerry00 and do not understand what this means at all. I cannot
conceive of tuning to the chord and ending up high to and beating
against the remaining third at the end, as Jerry seems to indicate if
I understand him correctly.

I just simply don't know what that is about at all. I hear only one,
good, just third there and have ZERO tendency to hear anything else
as acceptable in the context of tuning a major triad. Medieval and
other styles in which purity of the thirds is sacrificed for purity
of the fifths are not seeking a good tuning for the third in the
first place, so that, for me anyway, is an entirely separate
consideration as my post of yesterday indicates clearly.

Cheers and hearty greetings, Joe!

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35711
>
> >> Now, in a flexibly pitched ensemble such as an a cappella jazz
> choir,
> > even the other side of ET toward Pythagorean may sound better
still
> > to many ears, trading off even further in favor of the fourths
and
> > fifths. But then, barbershop quartets often sing very complex
jazz
> > harmonies that still tend toward JI when the quartet is really
good
> > and well-steeped in that tradition, a tradition that largely went
> for
> > very pure, sweet harmonies. Here, I would say, in stark
> contradicton
> > to opinions I have expressed in other non-medieval contexts, I
have
> > to agree that it is a matter of taste.
> >
> > Cheers to all,
> >
> > Bob
>
> ***Hello Bob!
>
> Well, your argument seems to make sense to *me.* However, I
believe
> Jerry (of the "jerries") is trying to make a more "generalized"
> statement.
>
> He's saying, I believe, that *whenever* one hears a perfectly
justly
> tuned *triad* one *automatically* hears a HIGH THIRD, in *whatever*
> style.
>
> Isn't that correct, "high third" followers...??
>
> Joe

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

> I just simply don't know what that is about at all.

That's been my reaction to a lot of this. :)

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > > Watch your language, Paul. There may be children on this list!
(Besides me.)
> > > What--pray tell--is a non-monotonic function?
> >
> > one that always increases -- it may speed up or slow down, but an
increase in frequency doesn't ever result in a decrease in pitch,
does it?
>
> Eh? That sounds like a monotonically inccreasing function.

right, i described a monotonic function. the opposite would be a non-
monotonic function.

Paul, I went back to this post because I woke up this morning thinking more
about it and feeling my response yesterday was incomplete.

>> Message: 10
>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 20:40:49 -0000
>> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
>> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1969
>
>>>> you're talking about singing 'into' a heard pitch as
>>>> if it takes place without hearing, via the same hearing mechanism,
>>>> the sung pitch. this sounds like a logical fallacy. and it's in your
>>>> *interpretation* of what you experienced -- the experience itself had
>>>> to involve a single, coherent hearing mechanism.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that one can't hear two things at the same time?
>>
>> sure you can -- but you use the same auditory mechanism to hear both
>> things. so any psychoacoustical effects which affect one will have to
>> affect the other as well.
>
While any hearing (or seeing, for that matter) experience is *received* by
means of a "single, coherent hearing mechanism," the *perception* of that
experience can and usually does depend on concepts and combinations of
concepts by which to "interpret" elements within the single impression. In
other words, the brain takes over and deals with the significant elements.

For example, we hear a symphony orchestra "as a whole" but, when trained, we
can focus on the oboe, or more to the point here, on the *relationship*
between the oboe and the bassoon. Therefore, what is the problem, in your
mind, regarding the "hearing" of my own voice while also "hearing" a
sounding jerry and comparing the two for "consonance"?

In this case, the sound of jerry00 is heard as one element in the
experience, complete with its "high third." Another element is the sound of
my voice, which I can manipulate independent of the jerry. If I tune it to
the JI third (which I know from experience with 4:5 intervals) it will, of
course, "disappear" into the jerry and be heard as an illusionary "high
third" even though it, in physical reality, is not. In this case, the
psycho-acoustical effect applies to both the jerry and to my voice.

On the other hand, if I sing the high third, in physical reality, that I
have learned over the years to recognize and/or perform, it also
"disappears" somewhat, presumably because it is sounding "in tune" with the
illusionary JI third. In this case, the psycho-acoustical effect applies
only to the jerry, but not to my voice since it is *not* a 4:5 third.

However, when I play the various thirds from the other jerries
simultaneously with jerry00, the result is less satisfactory (to my ears as
well as the ears of others) in terms of being the "best."

Therefore, the point of our continued experiment for me is to see whether we
can find a *real* high third that is so "in tune" that it apparently
"disappears," to a significant extent, into the sound of jerry00.

See any problems with that, Paul?

Jerry

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

> Therefore, what is the problem, in your
> mind, regarding the "hearing" of my own voice while also "hearing" a
> sounding jerry and comparing the two for "consonance"?

nothing.

> In this case, the sound of jerry00 is heard as one element in the
> experience, complete with its "high third." Another element is the
sound of
> my voice, which I can manipulate independent of the jerry. If I
tune it to
> the JI third (which I know from experience with 4:5 intervals) it
will, of
> course, "disappear" into the jerry and be heard as an
illusionary "high
> third" even though it, in physical reality, is not. In this case,
the
> psycho-acoustical effect applies to both the jerry and to my voice.
>
> On the other hand, if I sing the high third, in physical reality,
that I
> have learned over the years to recognize and/or perform, it also
> "disappears" somewhat, presumably because it is sounding "in tune"
with the
> illusionary JI third.

you've now compounded what appears to be to be a very unlikely
presumption, with an even unlikelier presumption. but no problem.
these are, at least, logically consistent presumptions.
>
> Therefore, the point of our continued experiment for me is to see
whether we
> can find a *real* high third that is so "in tune" that it apparently
> "disappears," to a significant extent, into the sound of jerry00.
>
> See any problems with that, Paul?

not really. i will continue to produce jerries for you.

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/18/02 3:16 AM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 14
> > Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:43:51 -0000
> > From: "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...>
> > Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> >> Simply stated (I hope), we're looking for the "exact" relative
frequency
> >> that will sound "in tune" with what we (I, at least) believe is
an
> >> illusionary "high third" produced by finely tuning the major
triad in JI.
> >
> > When do you hear a high third--Paul says you hear it go down, not
up, when the
> > root cuts out, so you hear it high when the chord is playing?
> >
> Yes, Gene. Since the illusion (if that's what it is) of a high
third seems
> to be produced by singing/hearing it in the context of a well-tuned
root and
> fifth, it seems to me to drop down to a "normal" 4:5 position when
the root
> and fifth are not sounding.
>
> Jerry

Bob Wendell responds:
I don't understand how we can define a "normal" 4:5 position outside
the context of harmony. After all, harmonic context is what defines
it. So why shouldn't it sound "normal" in the context of a perfectly
tuned 4:5:6 triad using a harmonic timbre? On the contrary, the pitch
drop illusion makes it sound to my ear as if it went flat from
its "normal" just position in subjective pitch space.

It seems clear some of us are agreed that the cleanly tuned third in
Jerry00 sounds subjectively higher in harmonic context than when
alone (although it is a low third compared to most current musical
contexts and takes some initial getting used to for most). So why
should we design an experiment in which the third is tuned even
higher than its pure triadic position when the latter is apparently
responsible for this very subjective impression of highness?

I would think it should be more revealing to play the perfectly tuned
triad and then move the pitch up slightly right when the root and
fifth drop out. We could check various options to see how much upward
movement it takes to null the subjective drop in different people's
ears. That would be truly interesting, don't you think?

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

> I would think it should be more revealing to play the perfectly
tuned
> triad and then move the pitch up slightly right when the root and
> fifth drop out.

just to clarify for jerry, you don't think the triad really has to be
perfectly tuned for this to work, do you?

> We could check various options to see how much upward
> movement it takes to null the subjective drop in different people's
> ears. That would be truly interesting, don't you think?

this would correspond to a test of the well-known psychoacoustical
phenomenon that i keep referring to. but jerry is hearing something
different (which 'thousands' of people have heard, he claims). i
guess the real point of these is to help jerry nail down what *he* is
hearing (since no one else here seems to be hearing it). other
experiments might follow, later on, if people are interested.

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> Therefore, the point of our continued experiment for me is to see
whether we
> can find a *real* high third that is so "in tune" that it apparently
> "disappears," to a significant extent, into the sound of jerry00.
>
> See any problems with that, Paul?
>
> Jerry

Bob W.:
Wow! OK, now I'm really lost. How can there be two thirds that
simutaneously sound in tune with the root and fifth? At the risk of
excessive repetition from my earlier posts, I hear *ONE* good third
in Jerry00 and it sounds "normal"! A good, JI major triad is the
felicitous result. I hear no secondary "high" third. I DO notice a
tendency to perceive a subjective drop in pitch that is *nulled out*
with careful, focused attention on the third througout Jerry00.
However, more casual listening does create this subjective effect,
although even then I hear a good, solid JI third as *dropping* to a
pitch that to my ear seems to go *flat* to the JI third in the triad.

I just posted a suggestion in a related thread. (These posts seem to
be producing various kinds of progeny at an alarming rate and making
things difficult to follow). I fail to see the point of raising the
third in the context of the triad as was done in these examples
(Jerries 01-07), since that is apparently already the natural
direction of the illusion when referenced to the later stand-alone
third.

Why not instead tune the third justly as in Jerry00 and then raise
the pitch by small increments in each subsequent example right when
the root and fifth drop out to see how much we have to raise it to
hear the pitch as staying the same under the casual listening
circumstance? I'm sure it would be different for different listeners.
This would be most interesting to me!

With all due respect, playing with a "real high third" that
disappears into the JI major triad seems to me as futile as Ponce de
Leon's search for the Fountain of Youth. I can see nothing in this
subjective pitch drop phenomenon that would even begin to imply such
possibility.

I think the root of this strangeness is taking the stand-alone third
as the reference point and then concluding that its insertion into a
triad raises its subjective pitch. It's all relative, of course. It
does indeed do that with respect to its stand-alone subjective pitch
station. But even taking this perspective, if its insertion into the
triad raises its subjective pitch, why should artifically mistuning
to raising it even further be of any value?

I see the third's position in a pure JI triad as its defining
situation, and the subjective drop when it is sounding alone should
be referenced to that. Then we can play with that last stand-alone
pitch to see how far we need to raise it to subjectively match the JI
pitch in harmonic context. We'll see, I'm convinced, that some
people's ears are much closer or farther from the objective realities
of frequency measurement than others. I would expect the subjective
pitch perceptions of highly competent professional piano tuning
technicians, for example, to be generally more accurately correlated
to *frequency* than others under many such anomalous perceptual
circumstances.

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

> Okay, how about this? The point here is to compare
various "apparent thirds"
> contained in a number of *real* high-third jerries to the "apparent
high
> third" produced by a JI jerry. And if and when we find an "apparent
match,"
> we can then think about laboratory testing. How's that?

sounds good to me. so, do you hear such a match, with any of the
jerries? most of us just seem to hear the ji jerry as lower than the
other ones, plain and simple.

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

(Bob offers an hypothesis at bottom.)

> In this case, the sound of jerry00 is heard as one element in the
> experience, complete with its "high third." Another element is the
sound of
> my voice, which I can manipulate independent of the jerry. If I
tune it to
> the JI third (which I know from experience with 4:5 intervals) it
will, of
> course, "disappear" into the jerry and be heard as an
illusionary "high
> third" even though it, in physical reality, is not. In this case,
the
> psycho-acoustical effect applies to both the jerry and to my voice.
>
> On the other hand, if I sing the high third, in physical reality,
that I
> have learned over the years to recognize and/or perform, it also
> "disappears" somewhat, presumably because it is sounding "in tune"
with the
> illusionary JI third. In this case, the psycho-acoustical effect
applies
> only to the jerry, but not to my voice since it is *not* a 4:5
third.
>
> However, when I play the various thirds from the other jerries
> simultaneously with jerry00, the result is less satisfactory (to my
ears as
> well as the ears of others) in terms of being the "best."
>
> Therefore, the point of our continued experiment for me is to see
whether we
> can find a *real* high third that is so "in tune" that it apparently
> "disappears," to a significant extent, into the sound of jerry00.

Bob comments:
Could it be, Jerry, that you have learned to compensate for the
subjective lowness of the stand-alone third by raising it slightly,
as I think you imply here, then subjectively feel that you carry this
raised pitch into the full triadic context and it still fits
according to your perception? I would postulate that if it indeed
disappears into it, you changed pitch slightly. It wouldn't take
much. Otherwise I can see no way that it could disappear for anyone
except maybe you for some inexplicable reason.

This is extremely difficult to assess using the voice. It's so easy
to fudge even a full syntonic comma of 21.5 cents with the voice and
not realize you're doing it if it's in a real musical context.
Isolated experiments can be more succesfully executed if your ear is
really solid. However, I would recommend using stable external pitch
sources to see if your raised stand-alone pitch really integrates as
well as you think it does with a JI major triad. In a sense, it seems
you already did this in a rough and ready way with negative results
when, as I think you stated, you superimposed some of the Jerries on
Jerry00.

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

> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:46:35 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35736
>
>> Suppose you were able to go back to the Renaissance and actually
> *hear* what sort of thirds choirs were singing then. Is it completely
> out of the realm of possibility that some of those sixteenth century
> ears heard a difference between a third sung with root and third
> sounding and one sung with root alone? How would you know? Would you
> ask them? Would you assume that *they* would know? Are you sure
> historians would know for sure?
>>>
>
> ***Hi Jerry!
>
> In the above paragraph, did you mean to say "...ears heard a
> difference between a third sung with root and *FIFTH* sounding and
> one sung with root alone?"...
>
> Or did you mean exactly what you said??
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joe

Thanks for catching my mis-type, Joe. I seem to keep repeating that
particular one and have to keep correcting it. That time is got through.

BTW, sorry for calling you by the wrong name a few days ago. So what's the
difference between one three-letter name starting with J and any other
three-letter name starting with J? :-)

Best,

Jerry

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

> Message: 23
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:20:55 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Therefore, what is the problem, in your
>> mind, regarding the "hearing" of my own voice while also "hearing" a
>> sounding jerry and comparing the two for "consonance"?
>
> nothing.
>
>> In this case, the sound of jerry00 is heard as one element in the
>> experience, complete with its "high third." Another element is the sound of
>> my voice, which I can manipulate independent of the jerry. If I tune it to
>> the JI third (which I know from experience with 4:5 intervals) it will, of
>> course, "disappear" into the jerry and be heard as an illusionary "high
>> third" even though it, in physical reality, is not. In this case, the
>> psycho-acoustical effect applies to both the jerry and to my voice.
>>
>> On the other hand, if I sing the high third, in physical reality, that I
>> have learned over the years to recognize and/or perform, it also
>> "disappears" somewhat, presumably because it is sounding "in tune" with the
>> illusionary JI third.
>
> you've now compounded what appears to be to be a very unlikely
> presumption, with an even unlikelier presumption. but no problem.
> these are, at least, logically consistent presumptions.

Well, I guess that's worth something. If one is going to be "out on a
cloud," one might as well be logical while enjoying the trip.
>>
>> Therefore, the point of our continued experiment for me is to see whether we
>> can find a *real* high third that is so "in tune" that it apparently
>> "disappears," to a significant extent, into the sound of jerry00.
>>
>> See any problems with that, Paul?
>
> not really. i will continue to produce jerries for you.

Very good. I'm ready!

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

> Message: 25
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:08:24 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
Jerry had said in response to Gene's post:
>>>
>> Yes, Gene. Since the illusion (if that's what it is) of a high third seems
>> to be produced by singing/hearing it in the context of a well-tuned root and
>> fifth, it seems to me to drop down to a "normal" 4:5 position when the root
>> and fifth are not sounding.

> Bob Wendell responds:
> I don't understand how we can define a "normal" 4:5 position outside
> the context of harmony. After all, harmonic context is what defines
> it.

Bob, my "normal" means "in relation to the memory of where the root was
before it stopped sounding. In other words, in the context of a remembered
harmony--like singing a JI major third melodically. I think I can do that
quite accurately. I know you believe you can as well.

> So why shouldn't it sound "normal" in the context of a perfectly
> tuned 4:5:6 triad using a harmonic timbre?

The point here, of course, is that the JI third doesn't sound the same as a
"normal" 4:5 dyad when sounding with both root and fifth. There is a
difference. And that difference seems to me to "move" the third higher. If
you prefer to call that "normal," I have no particular problem with it. It's
just that I think it less troublesome to refer to the simple 4:5 third as
"normal" and the illusory modification (if that's what it is) as "high."

> On the contrary, the pitch
> drop illusion makes it sound to my ear as if it went flat from
> its "normal" just position in subjective pitch space.

Okay. At least now we understand each other.
>
> It seems clear some of us are agreed that the cleanly tuned third in
> Jerry00 sounds subjectively higher in harmonic context than when
> alone (although it is a low third compared to most current musical
> contexts and takes some initial getting used to for most). So why
> should we design an experiment in which the third is tuned even
> higher than its pure triadic position when the latter is apparently
> responsible for this very subjective impression of highness?

Only because I realize that singers tend to actually *sing* a pitch at or
near where the illusionary one seems to appear. Whether that is actually
true may be evident when Paul produces the next set of jerries.
>
> I would think it should be more revealing to play the perfectly tuned
> triad and then move the pitch up slightly right when the root and
> fifth drop out.

Who knows? Maybe we instinctively do that. I would think so.

> We could check various options to see how much upward
> movement it takes to null the subjective drop in different people's
> ears. That would be truly interesting, don't you think?

Oh, yeah. But *you* do this one, Bob. I've got to knock this stuff off soon
and get back to *real* work. ;-)

Jerry

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35767

> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
>
> > I would think it should be more revealing to play the perfectly
> tuned
> > triad and then move the pitch up slightly right when the root and
> > fifth drop out.
>
> just to clarify for jerry, you don't think the triad really has to
be
> perfectly tuned for this to work, do you?
>
> > We could check various options to see how much upward
> > movement it takes to null the subjective drop in different
people's
> > ears. That would be truly interesting, don't you think?
>
> this would correspond to a test of the well-known psychoacoustical
> phenomenon that i keep referring to. but jerry is hearing something
> different (which 'thousands' of people have heard, he claims).

***Thousands of people are hearing high thirds, or thousands of
people are just "high..." ??

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35769

>> I think the root of this strangeness is taking the stand-alone
third as the reference point and then concluding that its insertion
into a triad raises its subjective pitch. It's all relative, of
course. It does indeed do that with respect to its stand-alone
subjective pitch station. But even taking this perspective, if its
insertion into the triad raises its subjective pitch, why should
artifically mistuning to raising it even further be of any value?
>
>
***Because then, obviously, it will drop back down...

:) (sorry, couldn't resist that...)

jp

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35770

> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > Okay, how about this? The point here is to compare
> various "apparent thirds"
> > contained in a number of *real* high-third jerries to
the "apparent
> high
> > third" produced by a JI jerry. And if and when we find
an "apparent
> match,"
> > we can then think about laboratory testing. How's that?
>
> sounds good to me. so, do you hear such a match, with any of the
> jerries? most of us just seem to hear the ji jerry as lower than
the
> other ones, plain and simple.

***Paul, where were the "composite" ones again, the *first* ones?

For some reason jerry00 really *did* seem higher than I would have
expected it to be... seriously...

jp

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35776

> On 3/19/02 1:26 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:46:35 -0000
> > From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
> > Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35736
> >
> >> Suppose you were able to go back to the Renaissance and actually
> > *hear* what sort of thirds choirs were singing then. Is it
completely
> > out of the realm of possibility that some of those sixteenth
century
> > ears heard a difference between a third sung with root and third
> > sounding and one sung with root alone? How would you know? Would
you
> > ask them? Would you assume that *they* would know? Are you sure
> > historians would know for sure?
> >>>
> >
> > ***Hi Jerry!
> >
> > In the above paragraph, did you mean to say "...ears heard a
> > difference between a third sung with root and *FIFTH* sounding and
> > one sung with root alone?"...
> >
> > Or did you mean exactly what you said??
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Joe
>
> Thanks for catching my mis-type, Joe. I seem to keep repeating that
> particular one and have to keep correcting it. That time is got
through.
>
> BTW, sorry for calling you by the wrong name a few days ago. So
what's the
> difference between one three-letter name starting with J and any
other
> three-letter name starting with J? :-)
>
> Best,
>
> Jerry

***Well, the government calls me by a nine digit number, so maybe
*that's* the solution... :)

jp

Paul asked me offline to listen again to see whether I hear the pitch
drop only for the justly tuned Jerry00 triad after the root and fifth
drop out, or hear the same or similar pitch drops for all the
Jerries. However, there has been a somewhat surprising delvelopment:

I had said I heard the drop in all examples, but it was most
pronounced in the justly tuned Jerry00. Now I go back and listen
again and the pitch drop phenomenon has totally disappeared! I have
no perception that the pitch has dropped now. One conjecture is that
I have learned from repeated *close* listening that the pitch doesn't
really drop and my ear has assimilated this learning so that even on
casual listening, the drop has disappeared. I did not expect this at
all, and am totally surprised by it!

Oddly, I do still hear a subjective pitch drop on all the other
Jerries (01-07)! I further speculate that this may be due to not
having the reference point that makes their sharpness evident, and so
the perception of sharpness disappears upon removing the reference to
the root an fifth. I have no other explanation for this surprising
turnaround in my perception.

There is another factor weighing in here. I just got back from
rehearsing my choir for an hour and a half straight. My ears get
thoroughly tweaked to a fine fare-you-well when I rehearse the choir,
since we go for adaptive JI and everything we're singing this time is
a cappella. (Concert this Saturday, so wish us luck! We're the first
local organization to be invited onto the Community Concert Series
for our town and there are four other towns within a half hour radius
that have reciprocity with ours for their season tickets, so this is
crucial exposure to a wider audience and the potential for recruiting
more singers is there. Wish us luck there, too. I would like to go
from 15 to about 24 singers in the long haul.)

Yours in strangeness,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/19/02 1:26 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 25
> > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:08:24 -0000
> > From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...>
> > Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
> >
> Jerry had said in response to Gene's post:
> >>>
> >> Yes, Gene. Since the illusion (if that's what it is) of a high
third seems
> >> to be produced by singing/hearing it in the context of a well-
tuned root and
> >> fifth, it seems to me to drop down to a "normal" 4:5 position
when the root
> >> and fifth are not sounding.
>
> > Bob Wendell responds:
> > I don't understand how we can define a "normal" 4:5 position
outside
> > the context of harmony. After all, harmonic context is what
defines
> > it.
>
> Bob, my "normal" means "in relation to the memory of where the root
was
> before it stopped sounding. In other words, in the context of a
remembered
> harmony--like singing a JI major third melodically. I think I can
do that
> quite accurately. I know you believe you can as well.
>
> > So why shouldn't it sound "normal" in the context of a perfectly
> > tuned 4:5:6 triad using a harmonic timbre?
>
> The point here, of course, is that the JI third doesn't sound the
same as a
> "normal" 4:5 dyad when sounding with both root and fifth. There is a
> difference. And that difference seems to me to "move" the third
higher. If
> you prefer to call that "normal," I have no particular problem with
it. It's
> just that I think it less troublesome to refer to the simple 4:5
third as
> "normal" and the illusory modification (if that's what it is)
as "high."
>
> > On the contrary, the pitch
> > drop illusion makes it sound to my ear as if it went flat from
> > its "normal" just position in subjective pitch space.
>
> Okay. At least now we understand each other.
> >
> > It seems clear some of us are agreed that the cleanly tuned third
in
> > Jerry00 sounds subjectively higher in harmonic context than when
> > alone (although it is a low third compared to most current musical
> > contexts and takes some initial getting used to for most). So why
> > should we design an experiment in which the third is tuned even
> > higher than its pure triadic position when the latter is
apparently
> > responsible for this very subjective impression of highness?
>
> Only because I realize that singers tend to actually *sing* a pitch
at or
> near where the illusionary one seems to appear. Whether that is
actually
> true may be evident when Paul produces the next set of jerries.
> >
> > I would think it should be more revealing to play the perfectly
tuned
> > triad and then move the pitch up slightly right when the root and
> > fifth drop out.
>
> Who knows? Maybe we instinctively do that. I would think so.
>
> > We could check various options to see how much upward
> > movement it takes to null the subjective drop in different
people's
> > ears. That would be truly interesting, don't you think?
>
> Oh, yeah. But *you* do this one, Bob. I've got to knock this stuff
off soon
> and get back to *real* work. ;-)
>
> Jerry

Paul asked me offline to listen again to see whether I hear the pitch
drop only for the justly tuned Jerry00 triad after the root and fifth
drop out, or hear the same or similar pitch drops for all the
Jerries. However, there has been a rather surprising development:

I had said I heard the drop in all examples, but it was most
pronounced in the justly tuned Jerry00. Now I go back and listen
again and the pitch drop phenomenon has totally disappeared on
Jerry00! I have no perception that the pitch has dropped now. One
conjecture is that I have learned from repeated *close* listening
that the pitch doesn't really drop and my ear has assimilated this
focused experience so that even on casual listening the drop has
disappeared. I did not expect this at all! I'm totally surprised by
it!

Oddly, I do still hear a subjective pitch drop on all the other
Jerries (01-07)! I further speculate that this may be due to the
removal of the reference point that makes their sharpness evident,
and so the perception of sharpness disappears. I have no other
explanation for this surprising turnaround in my perception.

There is another factor weighing in here. I just got back from
rehearsing my choir for an hour and a half straight. My ears get
thoroughly tweaked to a fine fare-you-well when I rehearse the choir,
since we go for adaptive JI and everything we're singing this time is
a cappella. (Concert this Saturday, so wish us luck! We're the first
local organization to be invited onto the Community Concert Series
for our town and there are four other towns within a half hour radius
that have reciprocity with ours for their season tickets, so this is
crucial exposure to a wider audience and the potential for recruiting
more singers is there. Wish us luck there, too. I would like to go
from 15 to about 24 singers in the long haul.)

Yours in strangeness,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

> I had said I heard the drop in all examples, but it was most
> pronounced in the justly tuned Jerry00. Now I go back and listen
> again and the pitch drop phenomenon has totally disappeared! I have
> no perception that the pitch has dropped now. One conjecture is that
> I have learned from repeated *close* listening that the pitch doesn't
> really drop and my ear has assimilated this learning so that even on
> casual listening, the drop has disappeared. I did not expect this at
> all, and am totally surprised by it!

I tried listening to the thing over and over, and my impression is the more you listen, the less it "moves". I think I may have heard a rise (not drop) with jerry0 because it all blended together, and when the rest dropped out the average tone, so to speak, rose. I'd like this explanation better if anyone else had heard a jerry0 rise!

What the hell is a jerry?
Paul , Joeseph???
have you invented a thingeeme bob?
Please explain.
I have been out of it for a while.....
:-)

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:27 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two

> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35770
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, how about this? The point here is to compare
> > various "apparent thirds"
> > > contained in a number of *real* high-third jerries to
> the "apparent
> > high
> > > third" produced by a JI jerry. And if and when we find
> an "apparent
> > match,"
> > > we can then think about laboratory testing. How's that?
> >
> > sounds good to me. so, do you hear such a match, with any of the
> > jerries? most of us just seem to hear the ji jerry as lower than
> the
> > other ones, plain and simple.
>
> ***Paul, where were the "composite" ones again, the *first* ones?
>
> For some reason jerry00 really *did* seem higher than I would have
> expected it to be... seriously...
>
> jp
>
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold
for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

Paul you asked some more information about my comment (sorry for being a bit
late) :

I then proposed
> > Sorry for being too much technical. Adding waveforms is equivalent to
put
> > three sources in parallel. At the crossing frequency between F0-fund and
> > F0-third, and also between F0-third and F0-fifth, there is a drop in
> > amplitude, i.e. an antiresonnance.

And you asked

> can you clarify what you mean by 'crossing frequency'? and . . . a
> drop in amplitude of what?

I will try to be more clear using some ASCII art....
If we add two signal with peaks at different frequencies:

Frequency (Hz)
------------------------
| |
| + |
| + + | Amplitude (dB)
| + + |
| + + |
| + + |
|++ ++ |
| +++ |
-----------------------|
plus
------------------------
| |
| + |
| + + |
| + + |
| + + |
| + + |
| ++ ++ |
| +++|
------------------------
^
|
At this frequency, both sources have comparable amplitude. Thus if they are
in phase, they add to each other an the valley is not deep.
------------------------
| |
| + + |
| + + + + |
| + + + + |
| + + + + |
| + + + + |
|++ ++ ++ |
| ++|
-----------------------|
If they are in phase opposition, signal cancel-out at this frequency and
there is a deep valley:
------------------------
| |
| + + |
| + + + + |
| + + + + |
| + + + + |
| + + + + |
|++ + + ++ |
| ++ ++|
----------++-----------|
I wrote:
>>This antiresonance would disappear if
>>instead of adding W1+W2+W3, invert the phase of W2 i.e. W1-W2+W3.
Paul replied:
> used random phases.

Phase is random indeed; but is seemingly consistent throughout each of the
jerries (it would be very difficult to do otherwise).
I do not know it this difference has any perceptual effect, (it is what I
want to assess)

Paul wrote:
> the noise and broadness appear to be artifacts of your analysis,
> and/or of the quantization. i used matlab to create tones several
> hundred thousand samples in length. i randomized the phases and added
> them together, then converted to .wav file.

> if you'd try a test of producing the tones yourself, then applying
> the same analysis, you'd see what artifacts your analysis produces.

I have done the same analysis on a sawtooth signal and found no such peak
broadening and noise between the peeks. For sawtooth, peeks stays sharp and
so called "noise" between the peals is much lower than for jerries: for
sawtooths wave, it starts at -85dB wich is of the right order of magnitude
for signal-to-noise ratio PCM on 16bits. May be noise in the jerries is due
to rounding errors somewhere in the chain, but I suspect a problem in the
algorithm use by matlab. Can you provide me with more detail on the way
matlab produces individual tones. The analysis method is very
straightforward (FFT with Hamming windowing), I doubt there is any artifact
due to the analysis method.

Maybe it would be easier to make versions of the jerries with sawtooth in
order to discard definitively influence of the synthesis method (or find
something new and even more disturbing).

yours truly

François Laferrière

--- In tuning@y..., "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35797

> What the hell is a jerry?
> Paul , Joeseph???
> have you invented a thingeeme bob?
> Please explain.
> I have been out of it for a while.....
> :-)
>
>
> Pat Pagano, Director

****Hi Pat.

Have you ever heard of "Gerrymandering?" Well, if you stop
meandering, and just "Gerry" then you get a "just jerry."

That is a peculiar species of "high" thirds (over 400 cents) which
you will find here:

/tuning-math/files/Paul/sounds/

joseph

--- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...>
wrote:

> Can you provide me with more detail on the way
> matlab produces individual tones.

i had assumed matlab would simply quantize the input vector in a
mindlessly straightforward way in creating a wavefile. i used 16-bit
resolution. should i try, say, 24-bit?

> Maybe it would be easier to make versions of the jerries with
sawtooth in
> order to discard definitively influence of the synthesis method (or
find
> something new and even more disturbing).

i found the sawtooth sound very unmusical, as opposed to the
recitified sine wave which is what i actually used. i find that the
amplitudes of the partials have to decrease at least as quickly as
1/n^2 in order for the resulting sound to be 'smooth'.

however, it would be interesting to conduct this experiment at some
point, to see if matlab is doing anything 'funny'. again, would 24-
bit resolution help?

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35791

> Paul asked me offline to listen again to see whether I hear the
pitch
> drop only for the justly tuned Jerry00 triad after the root and
fifth
> drop out, or hear the same or similar pitch drops for all the
> Jerries. However, there has been a somewhat surprising
delvelopment:
>
> I had said I heard the drop in all examples, but it was most
> pronounced in the justly tuned Jerry00. Now I go back and listen
> again and the pitch drop phenomenon has totally disappeared! I have
> no perception that the pitch has dropped now. One conjecture is
that
> I have learned from repeated *close* listening that the pitch
doesn't
> really drop and my ear has assimilated this learning so that even
on
> casual listening, the drop has disappeared. I did not expect this
at
> all, and am totally surprised by it!
>
> Oddly, I do still hear a subjective pitch drop on all the other
> Jerries (01-07)! I further speculate that this may be due to not
> having the reference point that makes their sharpness evident, and
so the perception of sharpness disappears upon removing the reference
to the root an fifth. I have no other explanation for this surprising
> turnaround in my perception.
>

****Bob, I'm sorry, but I'm not totally understanding this!

Don't you have the *same* reference points for the JI Jerry as for
all the other Jerries?? The experiment is set up the same way for
all of them, no??

> There is another factor weighing in here. I just got back from
> rehearsing my choir for an hour and a half straight. My ears get
> thoroughly tweaked to a fine fare-you-well when I rehearse the
choir,
> since we go for adaptive JI and everything we're singing this time
is
> a cappella. (Concert this Saturday, so wish us luck! We're the
first
> local organization to be invited onto the Community Concert Series
> for our town and there are four other towns within a half hour
radius
> that have reciprocity with ours for their season tickets, so this
is
> crucial exposure to a wider audience and the potential for
recruiting
> more singers is there. Wish us luck there, too. I would like to go
> from 15 to about 24 singers in the long haul.)
>
> Yours in strangeness,
>
> Bob
>

***Congrats and good luck, Bob!

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35794

> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
>
> > I had said I heard the drop in all examples, but it was most
> > pronounced in the justly tuned Jerry00. Now I go back and listen
> > again and the pitch drop phenomenon has totally disappeared! I
have
> > no perception that the pitch has dropped now. One conjecture is
that
> > I have learned from repeated *close* listening that the pitch
doesn't
> > really drop and my ear has assimilated this learning so that even
on
> > casual listening, the drop has disappeared. I did not expect this
at
> > all, and am totally surprised by it!
>
> I tried listening to the thing over and over, and my impression is
the more you listen, the less it "moves". I think I may have heard a
rise (not drop) with jerry0 because it all blended together, and when
the rest dropped out the average tone, so to speak, rose. I'd like
this explanation better if anyone else had heard a jerry0 rise!

***Frankly, I neither hear the pitch rise or drop. It seems to
pretty much *stay the same* to me, even after the fifth drops out.
This is for *all* the Jerries.

What I *don't* understand is why Jerry00 seems so *large.* I guess
it's *supposed* to be at 386, but it really sounds like 12-tET to
me... Dunno.

Are the frequencies really correct?? :)

jp

On 3/19/02 8:34 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:36:04 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> (Bob offers an hypothesis at bottom.)
>
>> In this case, the sound of jerry00 is heard as one element in the
>> experience, complete with its "high third." Another element is the sound of
>> my voice, which I can manipulate independent of the jerry. If I tune it to
>> the JI third (which I know from experience with 4:5 intervals) it will, of
>> course, "disappear" into the jerry and be heard as an illusionary "high
>> third" even though it, in physical reality, is not. In this case, the
>> psycho-acoustical effect applies to both the jerry and to my voice.
>>
>> On the other hand, if I sing the high third, in physical reality, that I
>> have learned over the years to recognize and/or perform, it also
>> "disappears" somewhat, presumably because it is sounding "in tune" with the
>> illusionary JI third. In this case, the psycho-acoustical effect applies
>> only to the jerry, but not to my voice since it is *not* a 4:5 third.
>>
>> However, when I play the various thirds from the other jerries
>> simultaneously with jerry00, the result is less satisfactory (to my ears as
>> well as the ears of others) in terms of being the "best."
>>
>> Therefore, the point of our continued experiment for me is to see whether we
>> can find a *real* high third that is so "in tune" that it apparently
>> "disappears," to a significant extent, into the sound of jerry00.
>
> Bob comments:
> Could it be, Jerry, that you have learned to compensate for the
> subjective lowness of the stand-alone third by raising it slightly,
> as I think you imply here, then subjectively feel that you carry this
> raised pitch into the full triadic context and it still fits
> according to your perception?

Bob, I can sing either third at will. In fact, I can sing either one at will
as a dyad with only the root sounding. The JI 4:5 tunes below ET and the
high third "tunes" above ET. The high third has a "right" place to be
(possibly because I have experienced the illusionary JI high third nearly
all of my life). You may have noticed that I said a few days ago that I had
believed the "in tune" major third was *above* ET well into my fifteenth
year of college choral teaching. When I was told it was actually lower, I
was *shocked.*

Judging from your posts, Bob, you also believe that the apparent third in
the JI triad is the "right" one, since you seem to hear the naked 4:5 third
as "flat." I strongly suggest that you conduct the experiment I described
earlier with your choir. (If you don't remember it, let me know and I'll
repost it.)

> I would postulate that if it indeed
> disappears into it, you changed pitch slightly. It wouldn't take
> much. Otherwise I can see no way that it could disappear for anyone
> except maybe you for some inexplicable reason.

Just singin' what I always sang, baby. My impression was that *all* major
thirds were the one *above* ET, whether in a triad or not.
>
> This is extremely difficult to assess using the voice. It's so easy
> to fudge even a full syntonic comma of 21.5 cents with the voice and
> not realize you're doing it if it's in a real musical context.
> Isolated experiments can be more succesfully executed if your ear is
> really solid.

From what I can tell, I have one. Apparently, you believe you do, too. I
also believe (from your own descriptions) that you and I are hearing the
same thing. Let's work together to see if we can "solve" this thing.

> However, I would recommend using stable external pitch
> sources to see if your raised stand-alone pitch really integrates as
> well as you think it does with a JI major triad. In a sense, it seems
> you already did this in a rough and ready way with negative results
> when, as I think you stated, you superimposed some of the Jerries on
> Jerry00.

Yes! That's right. We're on the same track now. If one of the next jerries
"nails" the high third, we'll know what it's relative frequency is. It will
then remain to discover what significance that may have in understanding
*why* it works.

(All, please note: I have not responded specifically to a number of posts
between this one and the first one on this Digest number (1974) because I
believe my response to the first one would apply to those questions. If that
is in error, please repost those questions and I'll be glad to respond to
them specifically.)

Jerry

Paul wrote:
> however, it would be interesting to conduct this experiment at some
> point, to see if matlab is doing anything 'funny'. again, would 24-
> bit resolution help?

perhaps, because, as far as I can see, jerries00 look a bit like a sawtooth
(with a larger high frequency damping) computed with a small amplitude
resolution, something like 8bits. If there is a resolution lost somewhere,
maybe 24 bits may help.

> i found the sawtooth sound very unmusical, as opposed to the
> recitified sine wave which is what i actually used. i find that the
> amplitudes of the partials have to decrease at least as quickly as
> 1/n^2 in order for the resulting sound to be 'smooth'.

When you say "rectified sine" I assume it is abs(sin (omega * T)), is it
correct?

Further, to provide my viewpoint to jpehrson:
> ****Hi Paul.
>
> Thanks. I'm listening to these again. Jerry0 *really* doesn't sound
> like Just Intonation to me. It almost sounds like a 12-tET third.
> Are you sure that Matlab is doing this right??
>
> jp
>
I can confirm results provided by Robert Walker with what I mesured
"manually" on the spectrum. Our disaccord is just on the confidence
interval. I think that this confidence interval is for a 1.5 sec sample to
1142/F cents. Nevertheless mesurement on higher partial confirm that
jerrie00 is JI within 1cent.

François Laferrière

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35794
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> >
> > > I had said I heard the drop in all examples, but it was most
> > > pronounced in the justly tuned Jerry00. Now I go back and
listen
> > > again and the pitch drop phenomenon has totally disappeared! I
> have
> > > no perception that the pitch has dropped now. One conjecture is
> that
> > > I have learned from repeated *close* listening that the pitch
> doesn't
> > > really drop and my ear has assimilated this learning so that
even
> on
> > > casual listening, the drop has disappeared. I did not expect
this
> at
> > > all, and am totally surprised by it!
> >
> > I tried listening to the thing over and over, and my impression
is
> the more you listen, the less it "moves". I think I may have heard
a
> rise (not drop) with jerry0 because it all blended together, and
when
> the rest dropped out the average tone, so to speak, rose. I'd like
> this explanation better if anyone else had heard a jerry0 rise!
>
>
> ***Frankly, I neither hear the pitch rise or drop. It seems to
> pretty much *stay the same* to me, even after the fifth drops out.
> This is for *all* the Jerries.
>
> What I *don't* understand is why Jerry00 seems so *large.* I guess
> it's *supposed* to be at 386, but it really sounds like 12-tET to
> me... Dunno.
>
> Are the frequencies really correct?? :)
>
> jp

Whoah, Joe! Hi! No, in Jerry00 the third sounds beautifully and
rightly low to me (referenced to 12-tET) and nothing like, no, not
even close, to 12-tET! There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that
Jerr00 is just and the rest are high. I underestimated how high only
because of the slow beat rate, the reason for which is still not
quite clear to me. They sound to me quite bitterly sharp in terms of
deviation and ignoring the beat rate. Turns out I should have trusted
that and ignored the beat rate.

Cheers,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35791
>
> > Paul asked me offline to listen again to see whether I hear the
> pitch
> > drop only for the justly tuned Jerry00 triad after the root and
> fifth
> > drop out, or hear the same or similar pitch drops for all the
> > Jerries. However, there has been a somewhat surprising
> delvelopment:
> >
> > I had said I heard the drop in all examples, but it was most
> > pronounced in the justly tuned Jerry00. Now I go back and listen
> > again and the pitch drop phenomenon has totally disappeared! I
have
> > no perception that the pitch has dropped now. One conjecture is
> that
> > I have learned from repeated *close* listening that the pitch
> doesn't
> > really drop and my ear has assimilated this learning so that even
> on
> > casual listening, the drop has disappeared. I did not expect this
> at
> > all, and am totally surprised by it!
> >
> > Oddly, I do still hear a subjective pitch drop on all the other
> > Jerries (01-07)! I further speculate that this may be due to not
> > having the reference point that makes their sharpness evident,
and
> so the perception of sharpness disappears upon removing the
reference
> to the root an fifth. I have no other explanation for this
surprising
> > turnaround in my perception.
> >
>
>
>
> ****Bob, I'm sorry, but I'm not totally understanding this!
>
> Don't you have the *same* reference points for the JI Jerry as for
> all the other Jerries?? The experiment is set up the same way for
> all of them, no??
>
Bob now:
I just mean that the justness of the third in Jerry00 in the context
of the open fifth surrounding it is a reference point I'm used to
dealing with. I know melodically on the violin and with my voice
right where a just third is. (I don't experience this shift in
practice to anything like the degree I did initially in Jerry00, and
assume that this is owing to the greater complexity of the harmonic
content in the Jerry.)

So with the other Jerries 01-17, since they're floating around up
there somewhere in pitch limbo above the justly tuned reference
point, I don't have as clear a reference when the root and fifth drop
out to tell me they're sharp, so maybe that's why they appear to drop
even after the just third in Jerry00 has ceased to do so.

Hope that clarifies my statements a little.

Cheers,

Bob

Hi, Jerry. Well, I don't remember the experiment you suggested for my
choir, so feel free to remind me, please. On our hearing the same
thing, I did initially hear (on repeated trials) a difference between
the Jerry00 third in the context of the triad and the stand-alone
third later. Although it apparently dropped in pitch after the root
and fifth dropped out, I did not initially hear it as "high".

This illusory drop does not follow that kind of logic for me. The
third in context sounded and continues to sound like the beautiful
low just thirds (vis-a-vis 12-tET thirds) I know and love. It DOES
NOT AND NEVER HAS sounded high to me. The apparent drop in pitch
after the removal of the rest of the triad has no bearing on that for
me. It just seemed EVEN LOWER than the low just third. Even that
phenomenon has disappeared for me however, to my surprise as I
mentioned in an earlier post.

How this drop implies a "real" high third to you or to your ear is a
total mystery to me. I have nothing against trying to chase this
down, but it's a perception that for me personally has absoutely no
meaning. The third is just, not high. It's apparent drop does not
imply that it was really high before. It certainly doesn't imply
logically or perceptually to me that there is a "real" third up there
higher somewhere. Where is that logic (or percpetion) coming from.
How does low going lower imply anything higher?! Truthfully, I just
don't hear or logically comprehend what you're getting at.

Respectfully,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/19/02 8:34 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> >
______________________________________________________________________
__
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:36:04 -0000
> > From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...>
> > Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> > (Bob offers an hypothesis at bottom.)
> >
> >> In this case, the sound of jerry00 is heard as one element in the
> >> experience, complete with its "high third." Another element is
the sound of
> >> my voice, which I can manipulate independent of the jerry. If I
tune it to
> >> the JI third (which I know from experience with 4:5 intervals)
it will, of
> >> course, "disappear" into the jerry and be heard as an
illusionary "high
> >> third" even though it, in physical reality, is not. In this
case, the
> >> psycho-acoustical effect applies to both the jerry and to my
voice.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, if I sing the high third, in physical
reality, that I
> >> have learned over the years to recognize and/or perform, it also
> >> "disappears" somewhat, presumably because it is sounding "in
tune" with the
> >> illusionary JI third. In this case, the psycho-acoustical effect
applies
> >> only to the jerry, but not to my voice since it is *not* a 4:5
third.
> >>
> >> However, when I play the various thirds from the other jerries
> >> simultaneously with jerry00, the result is less satisfactory (to
my ears as
> >> well as the ears of others) in terms of being the "best."
> >>
> >> Therefore, the point of our continued experiment for me is to
see whether we
> >> can find a *real* high third that is so "in tune" that it
apparently
> >> "disappears," to a significant extent, into the sound of jerry00.
> >
> > Bob comments:
> > Could it be, Jerry, that you have learned to compensate for the
> > subjective lowness of the stand-alone third by raising it
slightly,
> > as I think you imply here, then subjectively feel that you carry
this
> > raised pitch into the full triadic context and it still fits
> > according to your perception?
>
> Bob, I can sing either third at will. In fact, I can sing either
one at will
> as a dyad with only the root sounding. The JI 4:5 tunes below ET
and the
> high third "tunes" above ET. The high third has a "right" place to
be
> (possibly because I have experienced the illusionary JI high third
nearly
> all of my life). You may have noticed that I said a few days ago
that I had
> believed the "in tune" major third was *above* ET well into my
fifteenth
> year of college choral teaching. When I was told it was actually
lower, I
> was *shocked.*
>
> Judging from your posts, Bob, you also believe that the apparent
third in
> the JI triad is the "right" one, since you seem to hear the naked
4:5 third
> as "flat." I strongly suggest that you conduct the experiment I
described
> earlier with your choir. (If you don't remember it, let me know and
I'll
> repost it.)
>
> > I would postulate that if it indeed
> > disappears into it, you changed pitch slightly. It wouldn't take
> > much. Otherwise I can see no way that it could disappear for
anyone
> > except maybe you for some inexplicable reason.
>
> Just singin' what I always sang, baby. My impression was that *all*
major
> thirds were the one *above* ET, whether in a triad or not.
> >
> > This is extremely difficult to assess using the voice. It's so
easy
> > to fudge even a full syntonic comma of 21.5 cents with the voice
and
> > not realize you're doing it if it's in a real musical context.
> > Isolated experiments can be more succesfully executed if your ear
is
> > really solid.
>
> From what I can tell, I have one. Apparently, you believe you do,
too. I
> also believe (from your own descriptions) that you and I are
hearing the
> same thing. Let's work together to see if we can "solve" this thing.
>
> > However, I would recommend using stable external pitch
> > sources to see if your raised stand-alone pitch really integrates
as
> > well as you think it does with a JI major triad. In a sense, it
seems
> > you already did this in a rough and ready way with negative
results
> > when, as I think you stated, you superimposed some of the Jerries
on
> > Jerry00.
>
> Yes! That's right. We're on the same track now. If one of the next
jerries
> "nails" the high third, we'll know what it's relative frequency is.
It will
> then remain to discover what significance that may have in
understanding
> *why* it works.
>
> (All, please note: I have not responded specifically to a number of
posts
> between this one and the first one on this Digest number (1974)
because I
> believe my response to the first one would apply to those
questions. If that
> is in error, please repost those questions and I'll be glad to
respond to
> them specifically.)
>
> Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...>
wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > however, it would be interesting to conduct this experiment at
some
> > point, to see if matlab is doing anything 'funny'. again, would
24-
> > bit resolution help?
>
> perhaps, because, as far as I can see, jerries00 look a bit like a
sawtooth
> (with a larger high frequency damping) computed with a small
amplitude
> resolution, something like 8bits.

crazy!

> If there is a resolution lost somewhere,
> maybe 24 bits may help.

actually, i looked and matlab can only do 8 bits or 16 bits. 8 bits
is the default.

> > i found the sawtooth sound very unmusical, as opposed to the
> > recitified sine wave which is what i actually used. i find that
the
> > amplitudes of the partials have to decrease at least as quickly
as
> > 1/n^2 in order for the resulting sound to be 'smooth'.
>
> When you say "rectified sine" I assume it is abs(sin (omega * T)),
is it
> correct?

yes.

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> actually, i looked and matlab can only do 8 bits or 16 bits. 8 bits
> is the default.

whoops, i meant 16 bits is the default. at least that's what matlab
claims. perhaps i should try explicitly specifying 16 bits so
francois can see if it makes a difference.

Bob said:
>
> On our hearing the same
> thing, I did initially hear (on repeated trials) a difference between
> the Jerry00 third in the context of the triad and the stand-alone
> third later. Although it apparently dropped in pitch after the root
> and fifth dropped out, I did not initially hear it as "high".
>
> This illusory drop does not follow that kind of logic for me. The
> third in context sounded and continues to sound like the beautiful
> low just thirds (vis-a-vis 12-tET thirds) I know and love. It DOES
> NOT AND NEVER HAS sounded high to me. The apparent drop in pitch
> after the removal of the rest of the triad has no bearing on that for
> me. It just seemed EVEN LOWER than the low just third. Even that
> phenomenon has disappeared for me however, to my surprise as I
> mentioned in an earlier post.
>
> How this drop implies a "real" high third to you or to your ear is a
> total mystery to me. I have nothing against trying to chase this
> down, but it's a perception that for me personally has absoutely no
> meaning. The third is just, not high. It's apparent drop does not
> imply that it was really high before. It certainly doesn't imply
> logically or perceptually to me that there is a "real" third up there
> higher somewhere. Where is that logic (or percpetion) coming from.
> How does low going lower imply anything higher?! Truthfully, I just
> don't hear or logically comprehend what you're getting at.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Bob
>
Paul,

Bob's quandary on all of this prompted an idea as I was thinking about it
during breakfast. What do you think about constructing a listening
experiment along these lines?

1. A 4:5 dyad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately by a
naked ET major third. We will likely agree that the naked ET third is higher
than the 4:5 third.

2. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately by a
naked ET naked third. It'll be interesting to find out if anyone hears the
naked third as "lower." If so, he or she is hearing the high third.

3. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately by an ET
triad. (I realize that the fifth here will be different, but perhaps our
ears will be able to "extract" the thirds from both triads and compare them.

Such an experiment will not supplant the next jerries, of course, but it may
prove interesting. What do you think?

Jerry

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35858

>> Bob's quandary on all of this prompted an idea as I was thinking
about it
> during breakfast. What do you think about constructing a listening
> experiment along these lines?
>
> 1. A 4:5 dyad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately
by a
> naked ET major third. We will likely agree that the naked ET third
is higher
> than the 4:5 third.
>
> 2. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately
by a
> naked ET naked third. It'll be interesting to find out if anyone
hears the
> naked third as "lower." If so, he or she is hearing the high third.
>
> 3. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately
by an ET
> triad. (I realize that the fifth here will be different, but
perhaps our
> ears will be able to "extract" the thirds from both triads and
compare them.
>
> Such an experiment will not supplant the next jerries, of course,
but it may
> prove interesting. What do you think?
>
> Jerry

****This is funny, Jerry, since it was almost *exactly* the
experiment I was trying to do going back and forth from just triads
in my "Blackjack" scale to 12-tET!

I was having some synth problems, though, not on the Blackjack part
but, believe it or not, with 12-tET and it was not stable, so I never
posted the experiment.

But if somebody could do this *accurately* it would be an amazing
comparison.

best,

Joe

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

> > 2. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed
immediately
> by a
> > naked ET naked third. It'll be interesting to find out if anyone
> hears the
> > naked third as "lower." If so, he or she is hearing the high
third. (Joe to Jerry)

Bob:
An accurate interpretation of the words above would be that the so-
called "high third" is nothing other than a just third (4:5). Hearing
the same frequency as a lower subjective pitch when the root and
fifth drop out does not make it in any literal sense higher than it
simply is, a just 4:5 third.

I feel like something of a party pooper here, but when I play thirds
double stopping on the violin, I tune them justly. They sound fine to
me as just thirds, the lack of a fifth notwithstanding. I don't tune
them any differently as dyads than I would if the fifth were there.

In spite of going back even as far as Jascha Heifetz, with his
tendency to use high thirds melodically, on his famous recordings of
the Bach Unaccompanied Sonatas and Partitas for Violin he plays just
double and multiple stops, and his arpeggios and scales, in this
context at least, generally tend to be also just. I find this to be
almost universally true of the best violinists. Certainly this
applies to Perlman and Pinkerman.

Specifically for Jerry:
Please let me know if what follows is an accurate summary of your
hypotheses regarding your "high third":

1) A 4:5:6 triad is played, then the root and fifth (4, 6) drop out
and only the third is left, frequency and timbre unchanged.

2) Most people hear a subjective drop in pitch in the third when the
root and fifth drop out, despite the lack of any objective change.

3) Because of this relative difference in pitch, you define the
perceived pitch of the 4:5 third when in context with the full triad
as a "high third", regardless of the absence of any change in
frequency and timbre, using the stand-alone third as a reference to
define "high".

4) You postulate that musicians sensitive to small pitch inflections
of this order of magnitude tend to compensate by raising the "stand-
alone" third in frequency to subjectively match the pitch heard in
context with the triad. This new stand-alone third is now literally a
high third vis-a-vis the frequency of the just 4:5 third; even higher
than a 12-tET third.

5) You further postulate that this conditions musicians' ears to
inject this literally higher third back into the triad as is, a third
that is actually high, and that this literally high third now in
context with the full triad is not beatless, since it is now even
more sharp to just than a 12-tET third.

6) Finally, you also postulate that musicians hear this literally
sharp high third, because of the aforementioned conditioning of the
musicians' ears, as in tune even in context with the original
unchanged root and fifth, in spite of its not being a beatless third.

Please, Jerry, let me know whether this is an accurate summary of
your thinking, and if not, please specify in what ways it deviates
from your position.

Thanks,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > > 2. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed
> immediately
> > by a
> > > naked ET naked third. It'll be interesting to find out if
anyone
> > hears the
> > > naked third as "lower." If so, he or she is hearing the high
> third. (Joe to Jerry)
>
> Bob:
> An accurate interpretation of the words above would be that the so-
> called "high third" is nothing other than a just third (4:5).
Hearing
> the same frequency as a lower subjective pitch when the root and
> fifth drop out does not make it in any literal sense higher than it
> simply is, a just 4:5 third.
>
> I feel like something of a party pooper here, but when I play
thirds
> double stopping on the violin, I tune them justly. They sound fine
to
> me as just thirds, the lack of a fifth notwithstanding. I don't
tune
> them any differently as dyads than I would if the fifth were there.
>
> In spite of going back even as far as Jascha Heifetz, with his
> tendency to use high thirds melodically, on his famous recordings
of
> the Bach Unaccompanied Sonatas and Partitas for Violin he plays
just
> double and multiple stops, and his arpeggios and scales, in this
> context at least, generally tend to be also just. I find this to be
> almost universally true of the best violinists. Certainly this
> applies to Perlman and Pinkerman.
>
> Specifically for Jerry:
> Please let me know if what follows is an accurate summary of your
> hypotheses regarding your "high third":
>
> 1) A 4:5:6 triad is played, then the root and fifth (4, 6) drop out
> and only the third is left, frequency and timbre unchanged.
>
> 2) Most people hear a subjective drop in pitch in the third when
the
> root and fifth drop out, despite the lack of any objective change.
>
> 3) Because of this relative difference in pitch, you define the
> perceived pitch of the 4:5 third when in context with the full
triad
> as a "high third", regardless of the absence of any change in
> frequency and timbre, using the stand-alone third as a reference to
> define "high".
>
> 4) You postulate that musicians sensitive to small pitch
inflections
> of this order of magnitude tend to compensate by raising the "stand-
> alone" third in frequency to subjectively match the pitch heard in
> context with the triad. This new stand-alone third is now literally
a
> high third vis-a-vis the frequency of the just 4:5 third; even
higher
> than a 12-tET third.
>
> 5) You further postulate that this conditions musicians' ears to
> inject this literally higher third back into the triad as is, a
third
> that is actually high, and that this literally high third now in
> context with the full triad is not beatless, since it is now even
> more sharp to just than a 12-tET third.
>
> 6) Finally, you also postulate that musicians hear this literally
> sharp high third, because of the aforementioned conditioning of the
> musicians' ears, as in tune even in context with the original
> unchanged root and fifth, in spite of its not being a beatless
third.
>
>
> Please, Jerry, let me know whether this is an accurate summary of
> your thinking, and if not, please specify in what ways it deviates
> from your position.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob

***This is really interesting because I was a little confused about
the part about putting the "third back in..." as a higher one.

In fact, if the third really *is* higher than 400 cents then this
isn's so much a "psychoacoustic" phenomenon as a "reality."

It seemed to me, more, along the lines of what Bob is saying here:

a "just" third is a "just" third... it only *sounds* different when
there is a fifth present.

I believe Bob believes that as well (??)

But it still means that singers (particularly) and instrumentalists
still tune to a "beatless" third, only that the *PERCEPTION* and not
the actual *FREQUENCY* of the third is changing...

Well, I have to admit with the limited experimenting I did here, that
the just third really *does* sound different when there is a fifth
present...

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> ***This is really interesting because I was a little confused about
> the part about putting the "third back in..." as a higher one.
>
> In fact, if the third really *is* higher than 400 cents then this
> isn's so much a "psychoacoustic" phenomenon as a "reality."
>
> It seemed to me, more, along the lines of what Bob is saying here:
>
> a "just" third is a "just" third... it only *sounds* different when
> there is a fifth present.
>
> I believe Bob believes that as well (??)
>
> But it still means that singers (particularly) and instrumentalists
> still tune to a "beatless" third, only that the *PERCEPTION* and
not
> the actual *FREQUENCY* of the third is changing...
>
> Well, I have to admit with the limited experimenting I did here,
that
> the just third really *does* sound different when there is a fifth
> present...
>
> jp

Bob:
Yes, Joe, and initially I also heard a substantial drop in subjective
pitch when the third and fifth dropped away, but oddly I hear no
difference now. It seems my ear has somehow adapted to the phenomenon
in a way that reflects the objective situation more accurately. I
really did not expect this, and was quite surprised when I went back
only because of Paul's request to repeat the experiment, although his
request was unrelated to the perceptual change I discovered when I
returned to the examples.

P.S. I have never heard these jerries contrasting the third when the
root and fifth are present to the same third when only the root is
present, i.e. a dyad consisting of root and third. I just know that
on the violin in my normal musical practice, I never have experienced
a subjective shift under those conditions as I indicated in my last
post. Nor have I with my voice.

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***This is really interesting because I was a little confused about
> the part about putting the "third back in..." as a higher one.
>
> In fact, if the third really *is* higher than 400 cents then this
> isn's so much a "psychoacoustic" phenomenon as a "reality."
>
> It seemed to me, more, along the lines of what Bob is saying here:
>
> a "just" third is a "just" third... it only *sounds* different when
> there is a fifth present.
>
> I believe Bob believes that as well (??)

Bob:
Yes, correct, Joe.
>
> But it still means that singers (particularly) and instrumentalists
> still tune to a "beatless" third, only that the *PERCEPTION* and
not
> the actual *FREQUENCY* of the third is changing...
>
> Well, I have to admit with the limited experimenting I did here,
that
> the just third really *does* sound different when there is a fifth
> present...
>
> jp

Bob:
Yes, Joe, and initially I also heard a substantial drop in subjective
pitch when the third and fifth dropped away, but oddly I hear no
difference now. It seems my ear has somehow adapted to the phenomenon
in a way that reflects the objective situation more accurately. I
really did not expect this, and was quite surprised when I went back
only because of Paul's request to repeat the experiment, although his
request was unrelated to the perceptual change I discovered when I
returned to the examples.

P.S. I have never heard these jerries contrasting the third when the
root and fifth are present to the same third when only the root is
present, i.e. with a dyad consisting of root and third. I just know
that on the violin in my normal musical practice, I never have
experienced a subjective shift under those conditions as I indicated
in my last post. Nor have I with my voice or anyone else's voice, for
that matter.

On 3/28/02 12:18 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:31:03 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>>> 2. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately by a
>>> naked ET naked third. It'll be interesting to find out if anyone hears the
>>> naked third as "lower." If so, he or she is hearing the high third. (Joe to
Jerry)

Actually, I believe this was originally "Jerry to Paul." (Perhaps quoted by
Joe.) (Given the redundant "naked" in there, it most certainly would have
been mine. :-)
>
> Bob:
> An accurate interpretation of the words above would be that the so-
> called "high third" is nothing other than a just third (4:5). Hearing
> the same frequency as a lower subjective pitch when the root and
> fifth drop out does not make it in any literal sense higher than it
> simply is, a just 4:5 third.

Bob, you are literally correct here. However, you seem intent on turning the
focus around to fit your "established" position. It is very likely that the
illusionary high third is "nothing other than a just third." My concern is
that the 4:5 third is commonly heard as being *higher* than an ET third. We
both know that is *not* the case acoustically.

You appear to be assuming that the 4:5 third is the "right" third, yet you
seem to acknowledge that the "naked" third appears lower than that (at
least, you did so initially). If this is true, why not assume that the naked
third is the "right" third (4:5), and that the one sounding in a triad may
be a "high" one.

That is why I suggested to Paul to produce exercises that would allow us to
respond to those circumstances.
>
> I feel like something of a party pooper here, but when I play thirds
> double stopping on the violin, I tune them justly. They sound fine to
> me as just thirds, the lack of a fifth notwithstanding. I don't tune
> them any differently as dyads than I would if the fifth were there.

(No "apology" needed here.) The lack of fifth *is* the point, Bob. As I
stated here before, I can sing at will either the 4:5 third or the "high"
third, and both sound "in tune." That is the issue. Whether or not *you*
don't tune them differently is beside the point here.

Have you tried the "experiment" with your choir? I trust you will set it up
in an objective manner so as not to influence the result.
>
> In spite of going back even as far as Jascha Heifetz, with his
> tendency to use high thirds melodically, on his famous recordings of
> the Bach Unaccompanied Sonatas and Partitas for Violin he plays just
> double and multiple stops, and his arpeggios and scales, in this
> context at least, generally tend to be also just. I find this to be
> almost universally true of the best violinists. Certainly this
> applies to Perlman and Pinkerman.

The use of "high" or "low" thirds is in a real sense a matter of artistic
taste. I think we settled that long ago. (Somewhat)
>
> Specifically for Jerry:
> Please let me know if what follows is an accurate summary of your
> hypotheses regarding your "high third":
>
> 1) A 4:5:6 triad is played, then the root and fifth (4, 6) drop out
> and only the third is left, frequency and timbre unchanged.

Okay.
>
> 2) Most people hear a subjective drop in pitch in the third when the
> root and fifth drop out, despite the lack of any objective change.

Okay. But I think of it the other way around--that "most people" hear the
third higher than ET when the root and fifth are sounding. Whether it's
objectively unchanged is not a settled issue.
>
> 3) Because of this relative difference in pitch, you define the
> perceived pitch of the 4:5 third when in context with the full triad
> as a "high third", regardless of the absence of any change in
> frequency and timbre, using the stand-alone third as a reference to
> define "high".

The "stand-alone" third is a reference to "low." The high third is so
defined because it appears to be higher than the "stand-alone" (in relation
to the remembered root) third.
>
> 4) You postulate that musicians sensitive to small pitch inflections
> of this order of magnitude tend to compensate by raising the "stand-
> alone" third in frequency to subjectively match the pitch heard in
> context with the triad. This new stand-alone third is now literally a
> high third vis-a-vis the frequency of the just 4:5 third; even higher
> than a 12-tET third.

Actually, the "musicians" I have observed include totally uninitiated
beginners. That, in my thinking, eliminates the idea that such tuning is
learned from experience. It has to be psycho-acoustic.

Nevertheless, it may also be true that some experienced musicians who may
have heard the psycho-acoustic high third all of their musical lives (like
me) actually perform the "high" third as an "in tune" component in a major
triad. That's why I would like to know if, as I said before, the damn thing
works in reverse.

So, there actually may be *two* high thirds--the psycho-acoustic one and the
physical one. That is the issue here, as I see it. (Paul, of course, may
have another point of view.)
>
> 5) You further postulate that this conditions musicians' ears to
> inject this literally higher third back into the triad as is, a third
> that is actually high, and that this literally high third now in
> context with the full triad is not beatless, since it is now even
> more sharp to just than a 12-tET third.

That's it. You've got it. I think it probably happens because I've heard it
discussed among my pro singers.
>
> 6) Finally, you also postulate that musicians hear this literally
> sharp high third, because of the aforementioned conditioning of the
> musicians' ears, as in tune even in context with the original
> unchanged root and fifth, in spite of its not being a beatless third.

Uh huh.
>
> Please, Jerry, let me know whether this is an accurate summary of
> your thinking, and if not, please specify in what ways it deviates
> from your position.

Yep. That's it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
And even more thanks to you, Robert, for taking the time to understand what
it is I've been talking about.

Incidentally, I have nothing to prove here. I just want to know what's going
on. Your experienced ear will certainly help (actually has). I'm glad you're
back. And Thanks to Paul for suggesting I return to the list.

Okay, now do that "experiment" with your singers and let us know what
happens.

Jerry

On 3/28/02 12:18 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

Joseph wrote:
>
> ***This is really interesting because I was a little confused about
> the part about putting the "third back in..." as a higher one.
>
> In fact, if the third really *is* higher than 400 cents then this
> isn's so much a "psychoacoustic" phenomenon as a "reality."

I think it *can* be, Joseph.
>
> It seemed to me, more, along the lines of what Bob is saying here:
>
> a "just" third is a "just" third... it only *sounds* different when
> there is a fifth present.
>
> I believe Bob believes that as well (??)

I'm still waiting for him to clarify that.
>
> But it still means that singers (particularly) and instrumentalists
> still tune to a "beatless" third, only that the *PERCEPTION* and not
> the actual *FREQUENCY* of the third is changing...

While your experience appears to be a "listening" one, I think you likely
can appreciate the notion that singers and string players might begin to
"believe" the pitch they have been hearing and then actually produce it.
Very likely, *both* things happen--hearing and doing.
>
> Well, I have to admit with the limited experimenting I did here, that
> the just third really *does* sound different when there is a fifth
> present...
>
> jp

Yeah. Me, too.

Jerry

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

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35931

>>
> (No "apology" needed here.) The lack of fifth *is* the point, Bob.
As I stated here before, I can sing at will either the 4:5 third or
the "high" third, and both sound "in tune." That is the issue.
Whether or not *you* don't tune them differently is beside the point
here.
>

***I agree that the *next* experiment should contrast JI 4:5 diads
with JI 4:5:6 triads.

I was trying to set up the experiment and post it myself, but I was
having some timbre problems, so it wasn't accurate enough...

jp

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

> Paul,
>
> Bob's quandary on all of this prompted an idea as I was thinking
about it
> during breakfast. What do you think about constructing a listening
> experiment along these lines?

> 3. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately
by an ET
> triad. (I realize that the fifth here will be different, but
perhaps our
> ears will be able to "extract" the thirds from both triads and
compare them.

i didn't see why we couldn't just keep the fifth just, and move the
major third (actually, tenth) from a just 5/2 to 1600 cents:

/tuning/files/perlich/wavs/jerry10.wav

anyone hear the upper note (the third/tenth) *fall*??

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

> I tried listening to the thing over and over, and my impression is
>the more you listen, the less it "moves". I think I may have heard a
>rise (not drop) with jerry0 because it all blended together, and
>when the rest dropped out the average tone, so to speak, rose. I'd
>like this explanation better if anyone else had heard a jerry0 rise!

gene of course meant jerry00 . . .

i never got to listen to these at a decent volume, because of all the
people in the office. now there's no one here, so i listened to
jerry00 -- twice. both times, i was startled to find that, like gene,
i heard the major tenth *rise* a wee bit after the root and fifth
drop out! but of course i represent only one set of ears . . .

> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
> > I tried listening to the thing over and over, and my impression
is
> >the more you listen, the less it "moves".

Bob:
This was my experience precisely. The more I listened, the less
pronounced it became, but this listening was all in one session with
repeated listenings during that session. Then the next evening I
rehearsed my choir, working intensively making pitch judgments for an
hour and a half. When I came home, I received an offline message from
Paul asking me to listen again and see if I also heard the drop for
the raised thirds.

To my great surprise, I could no longer perceive any change in
subjective pitch of the third in Jerry00. The phenomenon had 100%
vanished for me. It has not returned since. Ironically, I still hear
an apparent pitch drop with the literally high thirds. I postulated
that this might be a result of having lost the clear reference point
for the literally high thirds (higher than in 12-EDO) floating in
limbo above where the just third would be. When the root and fifth
drop away, it sounds normal since there is nothing left to reveal its
literally high position in pitch space. Just speculation. I don't
pretend to really know why.

I have run into the apparent pitch drop before, but only when playing
with tunings on a complex synth timbre (harmonic timbre), and once or
twice on the violin after many months of not playing violin; never
with the voice. These were isolated experiences I dealt with as
previously described. I have never had the "practical" perception of
having to retune on a regular basis as a result of this "high third".

On 3/28/02 8:07 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:47:21 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>>>
>> ***This is really interesting because I was a little confused about
>> the part about putting the "third back in..." as a higher one.
>>
>> In fact, if the third really *is* higher than 400 cents then this
>> isn's so much a "psychoacoustic" phenomenon as a "reality."
>>
>> It seemed to me, more, along the lines of what Bob is saying here:
>>
>> a "just" third is a "just" third... it only *sounds* different when
>> there is a fifth present.
>>
>> I believe Bob believes that as well (??)
>>
>> But it still means that singers (particularly) and instrumentalists
>> still tune to a "beatless" third, only that the *PERCEPTION* and
> not
>> the actual *FREQUENCY* of the third is changing...
>>
>> Well, I have to admit with the limited experimenting I did here,
> that
>> the just third really *does* sound different when there is a fifth
>> present...
>>
>> jp
>
> Bob:
> Yes, Joe, and initially I also heard a substantial drop in subjective
> pitch when the third and fifth dropped away, but oddly I hear no
> difference now. It seems my ear has somehow adapted to the phenomenon
> in a way that reflects the objective situation more accurately. I
> really did not expect this, and was quite surprised when I went back
> only because of Paul's request to repeat the experiment, although his
> request was unrelated to the perceptual change I discovered when I
> returned to the examples.

Very interesting. Do I understand that your "adapted" perception changed
*after* Paul requested that you repeat the experiment. That seems to suggest
that Paul didn't really care for your first reaction, which you apparently
read as "wrong." Right?

I think it's pretty obvious since Paul's null-hypothesis post that his point
of view here is to disprove the existence of the high third. Your initial
response tended to blow that away. Now you seem to be rationalizing your
"adaptation" as a denial.

Incidentally, I'm very sure Paul has too much integrity to gimmick the
jerries. These experiments are important to me and I value his efforts in
this regard. But let's not kid anyone. What we don't hear, we don't want to
believe. In your case, you *did* hear. So what's with that?

I'm sure I made it clear that one could choose to sing (or imagine) the real
4:5 third into jerry00. That way the "difference" would not appear.
Apparently, that is what you *chose* to do. That is clearly why you "hear no
difference now."

Look, Bob. Let's cut to the chase. Do the experiment with your singers.
Then, let's talk.

Jerry

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

> Paul,
>
> Bob's quandary on all of this prompted an idea as I was thinking
about it
> during breakfast. What do you think about constructing a listening
> experiment along these lines?
>
> 1. A 4:5 dyad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately
by a
> naked ET major third. We will likely agree that the naked ET third
is higher
> than the 4:5 third.
>
> 2. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately
by a
> naked ET naked third. It'll be interesting to find out if anyone
hears the
> naked third as "lower." If so, he or she is hearing the high third.

not necessarily -- it could simply be an artifact of the
psychoacoustical effects i've been mentioning. however, if we voice
the triad in close position, we may be able to ignore those effects.
any objection to close position?

>
> 3. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately
by an ET
> triad. (I realize that the fifth here will be different, but
perhaps our
> ears will be able to "extract" the thirds from both triads and
compare them.

no problem. i'll get to this when i can -- maybe this evening.

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35583.html#35950

> Bob:
> This was my experience precisely. The more I listened, the less
> pronounced it became, but this listening was all in one session
with
> repeated listenings during that session. Then the next evening I
> rehearsed my choir, working intensively making pitch judgments for
an
> hour and a half. When I came home, I received an offline message
from
> Paul asking me to listen again and see if I also heard the drop for
> the raised thirds.
>
> To my great surprise, I could no longer perceive any change in
> subjective pitch of the third in Jerry00. The phenomenon had 100%
> vanished for me. It has not returned since.

***That's really interesting, Bob. I guess what that means is that
your brain actually *learned* something about the tuning and
presented you with a different impression once it had "figured it
out..." Kind of the same phenomenon as seeing those three-
dimensional objects in Escher-type color maps (that were in vogue a
very few years back). Once a person could see the image, you could
*always* see it, but not so sometimes before. Fascinating.

jp

On 3/29/02 2:46 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 04:57:05 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> Paul,
>>
>> Bob's quandary on all of this prompted an idea as I was thinking about it
>> during breakfast. What do you think about constructing a listening
>> experiment along these lines?
>
>> 3. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed immediately by an ET
>> triad. (I realize that the fifth here will be different, but perhaps our
>> ears will be able to "extract" the thirds from both triads and compare them.
>
> i didn't see why we couldn't just keep the fifth just, and move the
> major third (actually, tenth) from a just 5/2 to 1600 cents:
>
> /tuning/files/perlich/wavs/jerry10.wav

Okay. But why put it so high? Only sopranos and castrati can sing along with
it.
>
> anyone hear the upper note (the third/tenth) *fall*??

Sorry to be a "party pooper," Paul but I hear it fall. Actually, I can hear
it either way: if I sing the 4:5 third, it goes up; if I sing the "high"
third, it goes down. BTW, the "high" third I sing tunes nicely with the
first half of the item. (Wish we could find it.)

Ho hum. Anyone tired of this yet?

Jerry

On 3/29/02 2:46 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:02:47 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
>
>> I tried listening to the thing over and over, and my impression is
>> the more you listen, the less it "moves". I think I may have heard a
>> rise (not drop) with jerry0 because it all blended together, and
>> when the rest dropped out the average tone, so to speak, rose. I'd
>> like this explanation better if anyone else had heard a jerry0 rise!
>
> gene of course meant jerry00 . . .
>
> i never got to listen to these at a decent volume, because of all the
> people in the office. now there's no one here, so i listened to
> jerry00 -- twice. both times, i was startled to find that, like gene,
> i heard the major tenth *rise* a wee bit after the root and fifth
> drop out! but of course i represent only one set of ears . . .

Paul, I can hear what you seem to be reporting, however, in order to do so I
have to sing along with the 4:5 third to "block out" the high third. I'm not
sure that it actually goes *up* for me but something changes.

Paul, perhaps you could organize your office force into a choir and perform
the "experiment." No one else seems willing to try it.

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/29/02 2:46 AM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 10
> > Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 04:57:05 -0000
> > From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> Bob's quandary on all of this prompted an idea as I was thinking
about it
> >> during breakfast. What do you think about constructing a
listening
> >> experiment along these lines?
> >
> >> 3. A JI triad sounding for about three seconds followed
immediately by an ET
> >> triad. (I realize that the fifth here will be different, but
perhaps our
> >> ears will be able to "extract" the thirds from both triads and
compare them.
> >
> > i didn't see why we couldn't just keep the fifth just, and move
the
> > major third (actually, tenth) from a just 5/2 to 1600 cents:
> >
> >
/tuning/files/perlich/wavs/jerry10.wav
>
> Okay. But why put it so high? Only sopranos and castrati can sing
along with
> it.

so how did you manage?

> >
> > anyone hear the upper note (the third/tenth) *fall*??
>
> Sorry to be a "party pooper," Paul but I hear it fall.

!?!?!?!?!
anyone else?

> Actually, I can hear
> it either way: if I sing the 4:5 third, it goes up; if I sing
the "high"
> third, it goes down.

what if you don't sing along with it?

> BTW, the "high" third I sing tunes nicely with the
> first half of the item. (Wish we could find it.)

all right, more jerries to come, next week.

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35950
>
> > Bob earlier:
> > This was my experience precisely. The more I listened, the less
> > pronounced it became, but this listening was all in one session
> with
> > repeated listenings during that session. Then the next evening I
> > rehearsed my choir, working intensively making pitch judgments
for
> an
> > hour and a half. When I came home, I received an offline message
> from
> > Paul asking me to listen again and see if I also heard the drop
for
> > the raised thirds.
> >
> > To my great surprise, I could no longer perceive any change in
> > subjective pitch of the third in Jerry00. The phenomenon had 100%
> > vanished for me. It has not returned since.
>
Joe's reply:
> ***That's really interesting, Bob. I guess what that means is that
> your brain actually *learned* something about the tuning and
> presented you with a different impression once it had "figured it
> out..." Kind of the same phenomenon as seeing those three-
> dimensional objects in Escher-type color maps (that were in vogue a
> very few years back). Once a person could see the image, you could
> *always* see it, but not so sometimes before. Fascinating.
>
> jp

Bob now:
Well, yes, Joe, that would seem to be the only reasonable
explanation. This phenomenon was strong enough that I did not expect
it to necessarily go away, though, especially since I had experienced
this occasionally long before (over a span of years), although to a
lesser degree.

However, from extensive personal experience with highly precise
tuning both of instruments like the piano, synthesizers, and dynamic
tuning of violin and voice, I had learned that the ear tends
to "objectify" its perceptions over time to accord more precisely
with the measurable parameters such as frequency. I had expressed
this point of view clearly at the outset in my responses to this
thread.

I have long been convinced for example that the famous curves
relating frequency and pitch using naive listeners are not
representative of highly musical ears highly experienced with precise
tuning. The correlation of pitch with frequency is rather skewed,
with the naive ear hearing very sharp pitches in the higher ranges as
in tune and what I would call clean pitches as flat. I have run into
this with amateur sopranos in their high range and it usually takes
quite some doing to get them over this.

I believe that over time, pitch sensitive ears (sometimes referred to
as "natively musical"), develop an objectivity with regard to
frequency/pitch correlation that brings things into line with
harmonic realities. By this I mean that they gradually learn what
melodic intervals produce the most harmoniously consonant results in
the presence of other harmonically related pitches (such as octaves,
fifths, and thirds).

This point of view has grown largely out of my own personal
experience. I grew up playing trumpet in school bands that
unfortunately did not provide a very clear reference for precise
intonation, and also some keyboard experience and singing. I started
violin in my late teens and quickly discovered the poverty of my
intonational ear training when I started playing with its tuning in
pure fifths and tuning double stops.

I quickly noticed the syntonic comma and did some research to
discover the source of this maddening discrepancy. Without the
participation or knowledge of my teacher, I worked with my ear using
the obvious difference tones that double stopping produces, probably
augmented for the violin through bone conduction from the chin and
jaw, and thus began my adventure with JI, but all in relative
isolation.

This learning experience has taught me that the ear learns to
correlate frequency and pitch in an increasingly objective way. I
therefore feel that those with poor intonation sense have simply
not "objectified" their ears in this way and thus easily fall prey to
whatever psychoacoustic anomolies might assail them.

There are without any doubt, as I see it, psychoacoustic phenomena
that predispose naive ears towards perceptions that do not support
miminum tuning dissonance in the context of harmony, i.e., JI
harmony. Yet the tuning dissonances that arise in sufficiently non-JI
harmonies do not go away simply because some of these phenomena
predispose the ear away from JI.

On 3/30/02 10:50 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

> Message: 25
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:50:18 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
>>
>> /tuning/topicId_35583.html#35950
>>
>>> Bob earlier:
>>> This was my experience precisely. The more I listened, the less
>>> pronounced it became, but this listening was all in one session with
>>> repeated listenings during that session. Then the next evening I
>>> rehearsed my choir, working intensively making pitch judgments for an
>>> hour and a half. When I came home, I received an offline message from
>>> Paul asking me to listen again and see if I also heard the drop for
>>> the raised thirds.
>>>
>>> To my great surprise, I could no longer perceive any change in
>>> subjective pitch of the third in Jerry00. The phenomenon had 100%
>>> vanished for me. It has not returned since.
>>
> Joe's reply:
>> ***That's really interesting, Bob. I guess what that means is that
>> your brain actually *learned* something about the tuning and
>> presented you with a different impression once it had "figured it
>> out..." Kind of the same phenomenon as seeing those three-
>> dimensional objects in Escher-type color maps (that were in vogue a
>> very few years back). Once a person could see the image, you could
>> *always* see it, but not so sometimes before. Fascinating.
>>
>> jp

There is another interesting phenomenon that may apply in this case. It's
called the power of suggestion. ;-)

More to your point, Joseph. Bob already knew what a 4:5 third sounded like
before he listened to jerry00. He didn't need to *learn* to hear it. One can
*choose* to focus on the 4:5 third or to focus on the illusionary "high"
third. They are different perceptions facilitated by different *learned*
concepts. Evidently, he now *chooses* to focus only on the 4:5 third.
Therefore, the naked third no longer sounds "flat" to him. Okay.

I get that. What I don't get is why he no longer chooses to focus on the
illusionary high third (which he apparently experienced initially). If one
has formed a concept by which a certain perception is facilitated, how does
one "forget" the concept and then no longer can focus on it? As you stated
above, "Once a person could see the image, you could *always* see it, but
not so sometimes before." Bob seems to have gotten that backward.

So, who's kidding who? (Or is that whom?)

> Bob now:
> Well, yes, Joe, that would seem to be the only reasonable
> explanation. This phenomenon was strong enough that I did not expect
> it to necessarily go away, though, especially since I had experienced
> this occasionally long before (over a span of years), although to a
> lesser degree.

Hold on, Bob. When you first heard jerry00, you described the third in the
triad as the "right" third and the naked third as flat. Evidently, it hadn't
occurred to you before that there even *was* a difference between a dyad
third and a triad third. So what was it that you had "experienced over a
span of years"? How would you have known that what you were hearing was the
"high" third if you didn't know that a "high" might exists?
>
> However, from extensive personal experience with highly precise
> tuning both of instruments like the piano, synthesizers, and dynamic
> tuning of violin and voice, I had learned that the ear tends
> to "objectify" its perceptions over time to accord more precisely
> with the measurable parameters such as frequency. I had expressed
> this point of view clearly at the outset in my responses to this
> thread.
>
Frequency? Are you suggesting that so-called "perfect pitch" can be learned?
If so, that's pretty radical.

> I have long been convinced for example that the famous curves
> relating frequency and pitch using naive listeners are not
> representative of highly musical ears highly experienced with precise
> tuning. The correlation of pitch with frequency is rather skewed,
> with the naive ear hearing very sharp pitches in the higher ranges as
> in tune and what I would call clean pitches as flat. I have run into
> this with amateur sopranos in their high range and it usually takes
> quite some doing to get them over this.

Don't confuse ordinary out-of-tune sopranos with illusionary *relative*
pitch perceptions. Such poor intonation would likely not result from seeking
harmonic consonance with other singers. In my experience, those sharp
sopranos are not listening to much other than their own voices. (Probably
singing pitches "learned" from listening to the piano.)
>
> I believe that over time, pitch sensitive ears (sometimes referred to
> as "natively musical"), develop an objectivity with regard to
> frequency/pitch correlation that brings things into line with
> harmonic realities. By this I mean that they gradually learn what
> melodic intervals produce the most harmoniously consonant results in
> the presence of other harmonically related pitches (such as octaves,
> fifths, and thirds).

The "tin ears" in my music fundamentals classes learn *very* quickly how to
tune basic harmonic intervals. They even tune "wrong" notes very well. The
challenge is to get them to sing those same well-tuned intervals melodically
(in solo) without accompaniment. Like your soprano should, for example.
>
> This point of view has grown largely out of my own personal
> experience. I grew up playing trumpet in school bands that
> unfortunately did not provide a very clear reference for precise
> intonation, and also some keyboard experience and singing. I started
> violin in my late teens and quickly discovered the poverty of my
> intonational ear training when I started playing with its tuning in
> pure fifths and tuning double stops.

Yep. That'll do it. Human ears, even "naïve" ones, can hear mother nature if
given half a chance.
>
> I quickly noticed the syntonic comma and did some research to
> discover the source of this maddening discrepancy. Without the
> participation or knowledge of my teacher, I worked with my ear using
> the obvious difference tones that double stopping produces, probably
> augmented for the violin through bone conduction from the chin and
> jaw, and thus began my adventure with JI, but all in relative
> isolation.
>
I relate to that.

> This learning experience has taught me that the ear learns to
> correlate frequency and pitch in an increasingly objective way. I
> therefore feel that those with poor intonation sense have simply
> not "objectified" their ears in this way and thus easily fall prey to
> whatever psychoacoustic anomolies might assail them.

I don't know what you are saying here, Bob. My ear (which I'm quite sure is
not a "naïve" one) cannot *hear* frequency. (It can't even count to ten.) My
ear also cannot *hear* pitch out of tonal context, in the sense of naming it
Eb or F#. So what do you mean by the phrase "correlate frequency and pitch"?

Again, are we talking melodic or harmonic intonation. There's a *big*
difference, as I noted above.

> There are without any doubt, as I see it, psychoacoustic phenomena
> that predispose naive ears towards perceptions that do not support
> miminum tuning dissonance in the context of harmony, i.e., JI
> harmony.

And what might those be? Did you have any particular "naïve ears" in mind?
The naïve ears in my classes can hear and produce well-tuned JI intervals
with very little practice. The criterion they seem to use is to seek
"minimum tuning dissonance," the same criterion your experienced and
highly-trained ear likely uses.

> Yet the tuning dissonances that arise in sufficiently non-JI
> harmonies do not go away simply because some of these phenomena
> predispose the ear away from JI.

Did anyone here say that dissonance goes away because of psychoacoustic
phenomena? Who said this? Did anyone say this? I didn't say this.

Bob, I appreciate your time and effort here but this makes little sense to
me. You clearly believe "something" but what it is doesn't strike any
familiar chords in my musical experience.

By the way, now that you have disposed of "naïve" ears, does that mean you
don't intend to do the "experiment" with your choir?

Jerry

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

> What I don't get is why he no longer chooses to focus on the
> illusionary high third (which he apparently experienced initially).

i'm going to attempt to reply for bob here. note that i may be
completely off-base in my replies below -- but i have a strong hunch
that bob and i are really good at understanding one another, based on
past experience. if any of the below does not represent bob's point
of view fairly, i hope bob will chide me appropriately.

so here i go . . .

sorry, jerry, you're putting words into bob's mouth. it's only your
interpretation that he experienced the illusionary high third.
nothing he said suggests that he *necessarily* did.

> Hold on, Bob. When you first heard jerry00, you described the third
in the
> triad as the "right" third and the naked third as flat.

that's not quite right. he said the pitch of the note that was the
third in the triad went down after its harmonic context had been
removed. sure, one possible interpretation of that is in terms of
your current 'illusionary high third' theory. another interpretation
i gave in terms of known psychoacoustical phenomena. BUT, NB: he
*still* hears the thirds of jerry01, jerry02, etc. though jerry07 go
down after *their* triadic contexts are removed. these are not just
thirds -- far from it. so how would your current theory account for
that?

> Evidently, it hadn't
> occurred to you before that there even *was* a difference between a
dyad
> third and a triad third.

dyad third? excuse me, there was no dyad in any of the listening
experiments.

> > However, from extensive personal experience with highly precise
> > tuning both of instruments like the piano, synthesizers, and
dynamic
> > tuning of violin and voice, I had learned that the ear tends
> > to "objectify" its perceptions over time to accord more precisely
> > with the measurable parameters such as frequency. I had expressed
> > this point of view clearly at the outset in my responses to this
> > thread.
> >
> Frequency? Are you suggesting that so-called "perfect pitch" can be
learned?
> If so, that's pretty radical.

bob simply means things such as frequency ratios -- this has nothing
to do with perfect pitch.

> > I have long been convinced for example that the famous curves
> > relating frequency and pitch using naive listeners are not
> > representative of highly musical ears highly experienced with
precise
> > tuning. The correlation of pitch with frequency is rather skewed,
> > with the naive ear hearing very sharp pitches in the higher
ranges as
> > in tune and what I would call clean pitches as flat. I have run
into
> > this with amateur sopranos in their high range and it usually
takes
> > quite some doing to get them over this.
>
> Don't confuse ordinary out-of-tune sopranos with illusionary
*relative*
> pitch perceptions. Such poor intonation would likely not result
from seeking
> harmonic consonance with other singers. In my experience, those
sharp
> sopranos are not listening to much other than their own voices.
(Probably
> singing pitches "learned" from listening to the piano.)

bob is referring to the well-known psychoacoustical phenomenon in
which, especially given a sine-wave timbre, subjects invariably
choose melodic octaves slightly *wider* than 2:1 as "correct".

> > This learning experience has taught me that the ear learns to
> > correlate frequency and pitch in an increasingly objective way. I
> > therefore feel that those with poor intonation sense have simply
> > not "objectified" their ears in this way and thus easily fall
prey to
> > whatever psychoacoustic anomolies might assail them.
>
> I don't know what you are saying here, Bob. My ear (which I'm quite
sure is
> not a "naïve" one) cannot *hear* frequency. (It can't even count to
ten.) My
> ear also cannot *hear* pitch out of tonal context, in the sense of
naming it
> Eb or F#. So what do you mean by the phrase "correlate frequency
and pitch"?

he means, for example, hearing 2:1 melodic octaves as "in tune"
(though i question whether even bob could do this with sine waves in
an extreme register).
>
> > There are without any doubt, as I see it, psychoacoustic phenomena
> > that predispose naive ears towards perceptions that do not support
> > miminum tuning dissonance in the context of harmony, i.e., JI
> > harmony.
>
> And what might those be?

geez, i thought i gave an goodly number of examples of these types of
psychoacoustical phenomena already -- several weeks ago if i remember
correctly.

> > Yet the tuning dissonances that arise in sufficiently non-JI
> > harmonies do not go away simply because some of these phenomena
> > predispose the ear away from JI.
>
> Did anyone here say that dissonance goes away because of
psychoacoustic
> phenomena?

no. bob is just completing the logic in his argument, not suggesting
that anyone said this in particular.

> Bob, I appreciate your time and effort here but this makes little
sense to
> me. You clearly believe "something" but what it is doesn't strike
any
> familiar chords in my musical experience.

i have the exact opposite reaction. bob, in fact, has struck so many
familiar chords in my musical experience since joining this list last
year, that 'meeting' him will be an experience i'll never forget. but
that's besides the point -- again, i'm not trying to side with him
against you or anything like that -- my motto here is "jus' da facts,
man".

> By the way, now that you have disposed of "naïve" ears, does that
mean you
> don't intend to do the "experiment" with your choir?

i hope he will do the "experiment". i'm sure there has to be a good
explanation for what you're hearing, jerry, in regard to intonation
differences in the 2:5 dyad vs. in the 2:3:5 triad (don't say 4:5:6
unless that's what you really want in these experiments). but as for
your current theory on the matter, i think jerry10.wav is the best
test of it yet. unfortunately, you and i are the only people who have
listened to it. come on, folks! is *anyone* out there?

It seems to a non-participating observer that experiments
on minor chords may be beneficial at this point. (Inversions
too, but I'd like to see root position minor first).

In part this comes from my playing with my 31et guitar and
hearing the well-approximated 6/5 as pretty wide. If one does
dyadic tuning inside an open fifth, then flattenning the
wide 6/5 will lead to a "high third" on a major triad, and
perhaps 16:19:24 for a minor triad.

If we look at inversions, then I would conject that

high
1
5
3
low

will pull the high third higher and

high
3
1
5
low

will go more towards a just 5:4. This is just based on the
interval complexity, where sixths are more complex and less
damaged by out-of-tuneness than thirds. Of course looking at
these as harmonic series might also say that the first
inversion example will swim around more as it is 5:6:8 rather
than 3:4:5 (for those who, like me, just got
confused 1 3 5 <=> 4:5:6!)

As far as my solutions in 31et go, I find myself "adapting"
and using whatever thirds or sevenths feel right, theory be
damned (or rather, theory will be discovered after I figure
out which notes I actually want to use). About 10% of the
time my fingers find the notes that I thought I wanted.

Bob Valentine

Bob's current responses are interspersed in context below, designated
by their inclusion in square brackets:

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
> > What I don't get is why he no longer chooses to focus on the
> > illusionary high third (which he apparently experienced
initially).
>
> i'm going to attempt to reply for bob here. note that i may be
> completely off-base in my replies below -- but i have a strong
hunch
> that bob and i are really good at understanding one another, based
on
> past experience. if any of the below does not represent bob's point
> of view fairly, i hope bob will chide me appropriately.
>
> so here i go . . .
>
> sorry, jerry, you're putting words into bob's mouth. [And how! I
can't recognize much of what I said in the strange interpretations
that are bouncing back here. With all due respect, these conclusions
about what I'm saying baffle me as much as the theory we're trying to
evaluate does. I try to be clear and unambiguous in terms of the
knowledge and established contexts I tend to assume we share here,
unless we go back to square one and explain every concept from
scratch...]

it's only your
> interpretation that he experienced the illusionary high third.
> nothing he said suggests that he *necessarily* did.
[Right again! I only noticed the well-documented drop in subjective
pitch when the root and fifth drop out. If you want to use that
subjectively lowered pitch as the reference and designate as higher
the previous pitch perception of the same frequency in the context of
the just triad (yes, *FREQUENCY*, since that is the objective
reference used for JI), then fine! I have no objection to that. Just
don't call it a "high third", since it is simply a JI 4:5 third in
context with the triad and is only subjectively higher in pitch (for
some) than the stand-alone third.]
>
> > Hold on, Bob. When you first heard jerry00, you described the
third
> in the
> > triad as the "right" third and the naked third as flat.
>
> that's not quite right. he said the pitch of the note that was the
> third in the triad went down after its harmonic context had been
> removed. sure, one possible interpretation of that is in terms of
> your current 'illusionary high third' theory. another
interpretation
> i gave in terms of known psychoacoustical phenomena. BUT, NB: he
> *still* hears the thirds of jerry01, jerry02, etc. though jerry07
go
> down after *their* triadic contexts are removed. these are not just
> thirds -- far from it. so how would your current theory account for
> that?
[Right again, Paul! You seems to understand me clearly. Wish
everybody did.]

>
> > Evidently, it hadn't
> > occurred to you before that there even *was* a difference between
a
> dyad
> > third and a triad third.
>
> dyad third? excuse me, there was no dyad in any of the listening
> experiments.
[True. There weren't, and I was deliberately remaining ignorant of
the previous discussions until after I hear the "Jerries", so I
didn't even know what I was supposed to be listening for. I just
described in detail what I perceived and my reactions to that. Any
comments from me about dyads came in later follow-up discussions.]
>
> > > However, from extensive personal experience with highly precise
> > > tuning both of instruments like the piano, synthesizers, and
> dynamic
> > > tuning of violin and voice, I had learned that the ear tends
> > > to "objectify" its perceptions over time to accord more
precisely
> > > with the measurable parameters such as frequency. I had
expressed
> > > this point of view clearly at the outset in my responses to this
> > > thread.
> > >
> > Frequency? Are you suggesting that so-called "perfect pitch" can
be
> learned?
> > If so, that's pretty radical.
>
> bob simply means things such as frequency ratios -- this has
nothing
> to do with perfect pitch. [Right again. None of my statements
depend upon or imply any need for developing absolute pitch.]
>
> > > I have long been convinced for example that the famous curves
> > > relating frequency and pitch using naive listeners are not
> > > representative of highly musical ears highly experienced with
> precise
> > > tuning. The correlation of pitch with frequency is rather
skewed,
> > > with the naive ear hearing very sharp pitches in the higher
> ranges as
> > > in tune and what I would call clean pitches as flat. I have run
> into
> > > this with amateur sopranos in their high range and it usually
> takes
> > > quite some doing to get them over this.
> >
> > Don't confuse ordinary out-of-tune sopranos with illusionary
> *relative*
> > pitch perceptions. Such poor intonation would likely not result
> from seeking
> > harmonic consonance with other singers. In my experience, those
> sharp
> > sopranos are not listening to much other than their own voices.
> (Probably
> > singing pitches "learned" from listening to the piano.)
[I have exstensive experience, Jerry, with very inexperienced amateur
(and some experienced professional) singers who have what I call
a "pitch bias" or "perpetual pitch offset". It is flat for most
voices. I jokingly refer to what I call the "saddly sagging tenor
syndrome". It's almost universal in the states and to some degree in
Europe. You find it even in well-known professional choral ensembles.
Very rarely do you find such a perpetual bias to the sharp side
except in sopranos. Sure, other voices and even more experienced
sopranos can temporarily "overheat" on a crescendo and drive the
pitch sharp, especially if they're not attentive to pitch enough to
invoke the intuitive physical adjustments needed to compensate a
crescendo and maintain a constant pitch despite it. However, it is
not at all rare to find sopranos with a perpetual sharp offset. I
believe that this discrepancy among voice parts is likely due to the
pitch/frequency correlations documented in the experiments using
relatively untrained subjects. None of the other voices overlap much
of the range where this sharp bias shows up in these curves.]

> bob is referring to the well-known psychoacoustical phenomenon in
> which, especially given a sine-wave timbre, subjects invariably
> choose melodic octaves slightly *wider* than 2:1 as "correct".
[Yes again. This research was cited by Paul in the
discussions following the Jerries examples, and the apparent total
lack of any conceptual linkage to that in this response baffles me
once again. If we have to re-establish context every time we respond,
this is going to be a hopeless little, or maybe big, journey.]
>
> > > This learning experience has taught me that the ear learns to
> > > correlate frequency and pitch in an increasingly objective way.
I
> > > therefore feel that those with poor intonation sense have simply
> > > not "objectified" their ears in this way and thus easily fall
> prey to
> > > whatever psychoacoustic anomolies might assail them.
> >
> > I don't know what you are saying here, Bob. My ear (which I'm
quite
> sure is
> > not a "naïve" one) cannot *hear* frequency. (It can't even
count
to
> ten.) My
> > ear also cannot *hear* pitch out of tonal context, in the sense
of
> naming it
> > Eb or F#. So what do you mean by the phrase "correlate frequency
> and pitch"?
>
> he means, for example, hearing 2:1 melodic octaves as "in tune"
> (though i question whether even bob could do this with sine waves
in
> an extreme register).
[Right, Paul. Again, all reference to the cited research seems to
have been lost here. The closest objective correlate to pitch that
any of us know about is frequency. The whole Jerries experiment would
be meaningless without the experimental controls in terms of
frequency, so why are we trying to throw it out here?]
> >
> > > There are without any doubt, as I see it, psychoacoustic
phenomena
> > > that predispose naive ears towards perceptions that do not
support
> > > miminum tuning dissonance in the context of harmony, i.e., JI
> > > harmony.
> >
> > And what might those be?
>
> geez, i thought i gave an goodly number of examples of these types
of
> psychoacoustical phenomena already -- several weeks ago if i
remember
> correctly.
[Is the psychoacoustic phenomenon we're discussing, namely the
subjective pitch difference in a tone of constant *FREQUENCY* with a
change in context, not a case in point!!!!???? ...Is not this
whole "high third" theory based on the idea that this phenomenon
conditions some people's ears to re-inject into a triad a third that
is higher to a just third than even 12-EDO thirds? Is that not a
psychoacoustic phenomenon that by your own explicit agreement in a
previous post predisposes the ear away from JI, Jerry? How did we
get this lost? I was not being in the least abstract here, but rather
referring directly to the phenomenon under discussion!]
>

> > > Yet the tuning dissonances that arise in sufficiently non-JI
> > > harmonies do not go away simply because some of these phenomena
> > > predispose the ear away from JI.
> >
> > Did anyone here say that dissonance goes away because of
> psychoacoustic
> > phenomena?
>
> no. bob is just completing the logic in his argument, not
suggesting
> that anyone said this in particular.
[Well, I'm not sure I confine myself to that, Paul. It is true that I
am just completing the logic of my argument here, and meant nothing
behond that. Jerry has clearly stated, and reconfirmed my summary to
this effect, that his reinjected, literally supra-ET high third
sounds "in tune" to his ear. To me that implies that this deceptive
pitch illusion we're dealing with somehow generates for some
musicians' ears a new pitch that is "away from JI",...one that he
feels sounds "in tune", whatever that could possibly mean in this
context. If "in tune" means "no tuning dissonance" or even "reduced
tuning dissonance", then he has clearly implied that somehow the
tuning dissonance of his literally high third has been ameliorated by
a psychoacoustic phenomenon that predisposes the ear away from JI.]
>
> > Bob, I appreciate your time and effort here but this makes little
> sense to
> > me. You clearly believe "something" but what it is doesn't strike
> any
> > familiar chords in my musical experience.
[Well, again with all due respect, Jerry, I think I have probably
made it abundantly clear that your musical experiences, at least as
described in the current discussion, are at least as completely alien
to me. So I would be surprised if my experiences mapped nicely into
yours. I don't think that we can can reasonably expect one to map
into the other without it being mutual.]

> i have the exact opposite reaction. bob, in fact, has struck so
many
> familiar chords in my musical experience since joining this list
last
> year, that 'meeting' him will be an experience i'll never forget.
but
> that's besides the point -- again, i'm not trying to side with him
> against you or anything like that -- my motto here is "jus' da
facts,
> man".
[Well, I don't think human feelings should be beside the point here.
It is not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings, and hope I haven't.
Paul and I have certainly had our scraps here, as anyone who has been
here for awhile or looked thoroughly through the archives must know.
However, Paul's challenges to my thinking have deepened my
understanding very substantially. I hope this is true for Jerry, too.
I respect Paul as extremely erudite, a professional blues guitarist
(I love it!) and practicing microtonalist (witness his guitar
collection), and mathematician, who is also incredibly well-versed in
tuning history and stylistic evolution from medieval times and even
much earlier. I love that we can discuss jazz, blues, "classical",
middle eastern, and other ethnic music with him and he's right on top
of it. Fantastic! I have utmost respect for you, Paul, and your words
really warm my heart.]
>
> > By the way, now that you have disposed of "naïve" ears, does
that
> mean you
> > don't intend to do the "experiment" with your choir?
[Please do not take my phrase "naive ears" out of the context in
which it was used, namely the psychoacoustic experiments correlating
pitch and frequency that Paul recognized as my reference above. I did
refer to them as "the famous pitch/frequency correlation curves" or
something like that. The subjects in those experiments were not
experts in tuning anything. I am not so up on these things that I
remember specific references, and am therefore unable to document
things as if I were writing a thesis.]
>
> i hope he will do the "experiment". i'm sure there has to be a good
> explanation for what you're hearing, jerry, in regard to intonation
> differences in the 2:5 dyad vs. in the 2:3:5 triad (don't say 4:5:6
> unless that's what you really want in these experiments). but as
for
> your current theory on the matter, i think jerry10.wav is the best
> test of it yet. unfortunately, you and i are the only people who
have
> listened to it. come on, folks! is *anyone* out there?

[I will listen soon. I have no idea what it contains other than
something along the lines of the previous Jerries with some new
variation that I don't want to know about beforehand. I will just
listen and give a detailed report on what I heard. I will also try
the experiment with the choir, but there will be an inevitable delay
in that. We just finished a very successful performance for the local
community concert association. (We love getting substantial revenues
when they had all the expenses and the work for promotion, etc.) We
have a recording session Tuesday and then the choir gets a well-
deserved vacation for awhile. I don't want to burn them out. That
leaves no opportunities for anything non-essential until we
reconvene.]

On 3/30/02 11:07 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:

> Message: 23
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:11:05 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> What I don't get is why he no longer chooses to focus on the
>> illusionary high third (which he apparently experienced initially).
>
> i'm going to attempt to reply for bob here. note that i may be
> completely off-base in my replies below -- but i have a strong hunch
> that bob and i are really good at understanding one another, based on
> past experience. if any of the below does not represent bob's point
> of view fairly, i hope bob will chide me appropriately.
>
> so here i go . . .
>
> sorry, jerry, you're putting words into bob's mouth. it's only your
> interpretation that he experienced the illusionary high third.
> nothing he said suggests that he *necessarily* did.

You are absolutely right. Much, if not all, of what I say is my
interpretation. I only observe evidence and make my conclusion. Isn't that
what we all do? Do you have a better "interpretation" of what he heard. I
gave my reasons for suspecting *his* interpretation.

>> Hold on, Bob. When you first heard jerry00, you described the third in the
>> triad as the "right" third and the naked third as flat.
>
> that's not quite right. he said the pitch of the note that was the
> third in the triad went down after its harmonic context had been
> removed. sure, one possible interpretation of that is in terms of
> your current 'illusionary high third' theory. another interpretation
> i gave in terms of known psychoacoustical phenomena. BUT, NB: he
> *still* hears the thirds of jerry01, jerry02, etc. though jerry07 go
> down after *their* triadic contexts are removed. these are not just
> thirds -- far from it. so how would your current theory account for
> that?

I'd have to hear what *he's* hearing in order to have an "interpretation."
Much, I suppose, as you do in attempting to understand what I'm hearing.

Again, my view of Bob's "aural report" is drawn from the totality of his
discussion; his apparent confusion about what is going on here. For example,
citing his use of double stops as being related to the psychoacoustic thing
we're talking about. It's irrelevant.
>
>> Evidently, it hadn't
>> occurred to you before that there even *was* a difference between a dyad
>> third and a triad third.
>
> dyad third? excuse me, there was no dyad in any of the listening
> experiments.

No, but there are dyad thirds in Bob's analysis of what's happening here.
Again, his discussion of double stops. That's the dyad I'm referring to.
>
>>> However, from extensive personal experience with highly precise
>>> tuning both of instruments like the piano, synthesizers, and dynamic
>>> tuning of violin and voice, I had learned that the ear tends
>>> to "objectify" its perceptions over time to accord more precisely
>>> with the measurable parameters such as frequency. I had expressed
>>> this point of view clearly at the outset in my responses to this
>>> thread.
>>>
>> Frequency? Are you suggesting that so-called "perfect pitch" can be learned?
>> If so, that's pretty radical.
>
> bob simply means things such as frequency ratios -- this has nothing
> to do with perfect pitch.

If he means ratios, he should say ratios. And, if so, his conclusion appears
to be quite intent on denying the "reality" of the psychoacoustic effect
some of us have experienced here. Or at minimum, his mysterious "liberation"
from it. The business of "naïve" ears being fooled is pure BS. The
professional singers I have worked with for decades do not have naïve ears,
yet they do tend to sing the "same" high third I do. The question is *why*--
not *if*.
>
>>> I have long been convinced for example that the famous curves
>>> relating frequency and pitch using naive listeners are not
>>> representative of highly musical ears highly experienced with precise
>>> tuning. The correlation of pitch with frequency is rather skewed,
>>> with the naive ear hearing very sharp pitches in the higher ranges as
>>> in tune and what I would call clean pitches as flat. I have run into
>>> this with amateur sopranos in their high range and it usually takes
>>> quite some doing to get them over this.
>>
>> Don't confuse ordinary out-of-tune sopranos with illusionary *relative*
>> pitch perceptions. Such poor intonation would likely not result from seeking
>> harmonic consonance with other singers. In my experience, those sharp
>> sopranos are not listening to much other than their own voices. (Probably
>> singing pitches "learned" from listening to the piano.)
>
> bob is referring to the well-known psychoacoustical phenomenon in
> which, especially given a sine-wave timbre, subjects invariably
> choose melodic octaves slightly *wider* than 2:1 as "correct".

I am aware of this phenomenon and have seen it mentioned here from time to
time. However, sopranos don't sing with sine tones. Also, the small amount
of octave stretching in the phenomenon would not likely be problematic in
practical vocal music. Should the singer actually "hear" it, the audience
will likely hear it too and accept it. Let's be real, folks.
>
>>> This learning experience has taught me that the ear learns to
>>> correlate frequency and pitch in an increasingly objective way. I
>>> therefore feel that those with poor intonation sense have simply
>>> not "objectified" their ears in this way and thus easily fall prey to
>>> whatever psychoacoustic anomolies might assail them.
>>
>> I don't know what you are saying here, Bob. My ear (which I'm quite sure is
>> not a "naïve" one) cannot *hear* frequency. (It can't even count to ten.) My
>> ear also cannot *hear* pitch out of tonal context, in the sense of naming it
>> Eb or F#. So what do you mean by the phrase "correlate frequency and pitch"?
>
> he means, for example, hearing 2:1 melodic octaves as "in tune"
> (though i question whether even bob could do this with sine waves in
> an extreme register).

You still haven't answered my question. How does one "correlate frequency
and pitch"? What significance do these words have in regard to hearing
octaves in tune?
>>
>>> There are without any doubt, as I see it, psychoacoustic phenomena
>>> that predispose naive ears towards perceptions that do not support
>>> miminum tuning dissonance in the context of harmony, i.e., JI
>>> harmony.
>>
>> And what might those be?
>
> geez, i thought i gave an goodly number of examples of these types of
> psychoacoustical phenomena already -- several weeks ago if i remember
> correctly.

I don't remember you relating any of them to "naïve ears."
>
>>> Yet the tuning dissonances that arise in sufficiently non-JI
>>> harmonies do not go away simply because some of these phenomena
>>> predispose the ear away from JI.
>>
>> Did anyone here say that dissonance goes away because of psychoacoustic
>> phenomena?
>
> no. bob is just completing the logic in his argument, not suggesting
> that anyone said this in particular.

Oh? Do you really believe that? His whole discourse appears directed toward
dismissing the the "learned" high third. I would welcome that opinion if his
supporting ideas related to the real issues here. Unfortunately, his
discussion simply shows that he doesn't really "get it."
>
>> Bob, I appreciate your time and effort here but this makes little sense to
>> me. You clearly believe "something" but what it is doesn't strike any
>> familiar chords in my musical experience.
>
> i have the exact opposite reaction. bob, in fact, has struck so many
> familiar chords in my musical experience since joining this list last
> year, that 'meeting' him will be an experience i'll never forget. but
> that's besides the point -- again, i'm not trying to side with him
> against you or anything like that -- my motto here is "jus' da facts,
> man".

I know that is your intention, Paul. And it's a laudable one. And of course
one tends to bond with someone who seems to be expressing ideas and
experiences that resonate with one's own point of view.

However, your attempt at "clarification" here is little more than a weak
defense. You, as has Bob, simply apply your *theory* without regard for
practical experience. (Sine waves and sopranos--give me a break!)

Just before the Yahoo fiasco, Bob posted a "position paper" to which I
responded in regard to strange assumptions and even stranger conclusions. He
didn't respond to my comments, so I chalked it up to his busy schedule. Your
response to his "position paper" was a hearty pat on the back and a comment
that you couldn't have written it better. (I guess I live in a different
world than you and Bob.(Since you were so much in accord with Bob's post,
why didn't *you* respond to my points? I'm sure you don't miss anything
here. In fact, why haven't you responded to *all* of my points in regard to
*this* post? Do you agree with anything I have said here? (Asked only in
general, Paul. Please don't bore the rest of the list with my peripheral
comments on Bob's "missing the point.")

>> By the way, now that you have disposed of "naïve" ears, does that mean you
>> don't intend to do the "experiment" with your choir?
>
> i hope he will do the "experiment".

I do too, provided he understands what to listen for. With his newly
"liberated" ears there's no telling what his reported result might be.

> i'm sure there has to be a good
> explanation for what you're hearing, jerry, in regard to intonation
> differences in the 2:5 dyad vs. in the 2:3:5 triad

I realize that, Paul. Otherwise you would not have spent so much time
helping us explore it. I sincerely appreciate your contribution here.

> (don't say 4:5:6
> unless that's what you really want in these experiments).

Got it. If I slip up, remind me again. Actually, I don't think it matters.
It's simply easier to hear the third clearly when it's the top voice.
Remember, your jerry0 was the one that caught Joseph's ear and also prompted
my "cheers" celebration.

> but as for
> your current theory on the matter, i think jerry10.wav is the best
> test of it yet.

You may be right. We'll see.

> unfortunately, you and i are the only people who have
> listened to it. come on, folks! is *anyone* out there?
>
Yeah! Like *that*!

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

> I respect Paul as extremely erudite, a professional blues
guitarist
> (I love it!)

blues . . . and stuff. in case you haven't already, you can check
out some tracks from a gig my band did back in 2000 here:

www.mp3.com/StretchBoston

we've since added more musicians and are currently mixing a
3-inch demo cd . . .

> Fantastic! I have utmost respect for you, Paul,

likewise. let's be equally respectful of jerry, too (have you heard
any of _his_ recordings?), and i hope he will be able to bring
forward the listening example that serves as a demonstration of
the 'high third phenomenon' he's asking you to try to reproduce
with your choir.

peace,
paul

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

> > geez, i thought i gave an goodly number of examples of these
types of
> > psychoacoustical phenomena already -- several weeks ago
if i remember
> > correctly.
>
> I don't remember you relating any of them to "naïve ears."

well, typically the subjects for such experiments are chosen to be
musically untrained subjects, unless otherwise indicated.
though i suppose we would have to go back to the original
literature to make sure.

> However, your attempt at "clarification" here is little more than a
weak
> defense. You, as has Bob, simply apply your *theory* without
regard for
> practical experience. (Sine waves and sopranos--give me a
break!)
>
> (Since you were so much in accord with Bob's post,
> why didn't *you* respond to my points?

sorry -- are you talking to me? what would you like me to respond
to?

> I'm sure you don't miss anything
> here. In fact, why haven't you responded to *all* of my points in
regard to
> *this* post? Do you agree with anything I have said here?

*this* post? how do you know in advance that i haven't
responded to all the posts? well, since you're obviously psychic,
since i haven't, the reason is that this was a conversation
between you and bob, and i jumped in -- bob has now
responded, to all the points i believe, so you should look at his
response and see if it makes any more sense to you.

> Got it. If I slip up, remind me again. Actually, I don't think it
matters.

i think it matters a great deal if the third is on top or not, with
regard to the known psychoacoustical phenomena in which
pitches 'push each other apart'.

peace,
paul

On 4/1/02 11:45 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 04:30:37 -0000
> From: "robert_wendell" <rwendell@cangelic.org>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
Bob, I'll delete some of the previous content here in the interest of
focusing on potentially helpful exchanges.

As you know, I have already responded to Paul's "defense" of your earlier
post. Unfortunately, you didn't include those here for the sake of others
who may have missed them. Nevertheless, I hope they were helpful to you in
formulating your thoughts here.

---------------

Paul said:

>> sorry, jerry, you're putting words into bob's mouth.

Bob said:

> [And how! I
> can't recognize much of what I said in the strange interpretations
> that are bouncing back here. With all due respect, these conclusions
> about what I'm saying baffle me as much as the theory we're trying to
> evaluate does. I try to be clear and unambiguous in terms of the
> knowledge and established contexts I tend to assume we share here,
> unless we go back to square one and explain every concept from
> scratch...]

Do any of my expressions of wonder in regard to your posts hook-in in any
way? Much of what I have been concerned about in your early posts was
largely ignored by both you and Paul. (My responses to your "position
paper," for example, that Paul said he agreed with so heartily that he might
well have written it himself.)

It's pretty clear that you are "baffled" by all of this. My impression has
been that you kind of float over this discussion relying on a cursory
reading of the content and then assume that your old comfortable concepts
are adequate for the job. I realize that you have been busy, but when you
fail to "get it" you risk "sticks and stones" from people like me. :-)

By the way, I'm not "putting words" into your mouth, Bob. I'm taking your
total report and reflecting on what I hear (see). I realized (even while
doing so) that you would probably would not like what I see. My "mirror" is
offered in honesty. Take it or leave it.

---------------

Paul to me:
>
>> it's only your
>> interpretation that he experienced the illusionary high third.
>> nothing he said suggests that he *necessarily* did.

> [Right again! I only noticed the well-documented drop in subjective
> pitch when the root and fifth drop out. If you want to use that
> subjectively lowered pitch as the reference and designate as higher
> the previous pitch perception of the same frequency in the context of
> the just triad (yes, *FREQUENCY*, since that is the objective
> reference used for JI), then fine! I have no objection to that. Just
> don't call it a "high third", since it is simply a JI 4:5 third in
> context with the triad and is only subjectively higher in pitch (for
> some) than the stand-alone third.]

I think we may have a winner here, Bob. We all *know* (thanks to Paul's
jerry0) that the third sounding in the JI triad is "simply a JI 4:5 third."
And you are correct that the high third "some" of us hear in that context is
"only subjectively higher in pitch." That's an important part of the puzzle
that we only recently discovered.

However, I also realize (at least, I believe so) that singers and string
players frequently perform an *actual* high third that approximates the
illusionary one. There is little disagreement about that. Call it personal
preference, artistic deviation, or whatever. It does exist.

The questions then are these: (1) have "flexible pitch" performers learned
the high third from having "imagined" it while singing and playing JI
triads, and if so, (2) do they then tend to *actually* perform it as a
result of having learned it from the JI triad?

-----------

Me:

>>> Hold on, Bob. When you first heard jerry00, you described the third in the
>>> triad as the "right" third and the naked third as flat.

Paul:

>> that's not quite right. he said the pitch of the note that was the
>> third in the triad went down after its harmonic context had been
>> removed. sure, one possible interpretation of that is in terms of
>> your current 'illusionary high third' theory. another interpretation
>> i gave in terms of known psychoacoustical phenomena. BUT, NB: he
>> *still* hears the thirds of jerry01, jerry02, etc. though jerry07 go
>> down after *their* triadic contexts are removed. these are not just
>> thirds -- far from it. so how would your current theory account for
>> that?

> [Right again, Paul! You seems to understand me clearly. Wish
> everybody did.]

I, too, can hear a change in the naked third in the other jerries when the
root/fifth drops out. If that change is in pitch, it seems to me not nearly
as pronounced as it is in jerry00. Again, I must (in order to be true to my
own sense of reality) read your reported perceptions in relation to my own.
That's just the way it is.

-------------------

Me:
>>
>>> Evidently, it hadn't
>>> occurred to you before that there even *was* a difference between a dyad
>>> third and a triad third.
>>
Paul:

>> dyad third? excuse me, there was no dyad in any of the listening
>> experiments.

> [True. There weren't, and I was deliberately remaining ignorant of
> the previous discussions until after I hear the "Jerries", so I
> didn't even know what I was supposed to be listening for. I just
> described in detail what I perceived and my reactions to that. Any
> comments from me about dyads came in later follow-up discussions.]

No problem with unprejudiced hearing and your subsequent initial report. My
"problem" arose when you changed your report upon finding out what you were
"supposed to be listening for." Your irrelevant (in my opinion)
justification in terms of your dealing with 4:5 thirds simply demonstrated
that you "didn't get it."

--------------------

Bob said:
>>
>>>> However, from extensive personal experience with highly precise
>>>> tuning both of instruments like the piano, synthesizers, and dynamic
>>>> tuning of violin and voice, I had learned that the ear tends
>>>> to "objectify" its perceptions over time to accord more precisely
>>>> with the measurable parameters such as frequency. I had expressed
>>>> this point of view clearly at the outset in my responses to this
>>>> thread.
>>>>
I said:
>>>
>>> Don't confuse ordinary out-of-tune sopranos with illusionary *relative*
>>> pitch perceptions. Such poor intonation would likely not result from seeking
>>> harmonic consonance with other singers. In my experience, those sharp
>>> sopranos are not listening to much other than their own voices. (Probably
>>> singing pitches "learned" from listening to the piano.)

> [I have exstensive experience, Jerry, with very inexperienced amateur
> (and some experienced professional) singers who have what I call
> a "pitch bias" or "perpetual pitch offset". It is flat for most
> voices. I jokingly refer to what I call the "saddly sagging tenor
> syndrome". It's almost universal in the states and to some degree in
> Europe. You find it even in well-known professional choral ensembles.

I find it more likely due to poor vocal production than to poor tuning. When
the vocal production is improved (usually by raising the resonance "window")
tuning usually fixes itself.

> Very rarely do you find such a perpetual bias to the sharp side
> except in sopranos.

Generally true (although I'm not sure it's a "perceptual" bias).
Occasionally, an Irish tenor type will float off into the stratosphere, but
frequently that can be chalked up to ego. And then there is the singer who
floats both ways, likely due to never having focused on being "in tune" (as
opposed to matching "mushy" piano pitches).

Another possibility might have to do with the soprano voice being always
(when in high register) in "head tone." They can only get there by "dropping
off" the weight of low resonance. That might induce a kind of "floating."

> Sure, other voices and even more experienced
> sopranos can temporarily "overheat" on a crescendo and drive the
> pitch sharp, especially if they're not attentive to pitch enough to
> invoke the intuitive physical adjustments needed to compensate a
> crescendo and maintain a constant pitch despite it.

It frequently happens even without a crescendo, and that's even more
excruciating.

> However, it is
> not at all rare to find sopranos with a perpetual sharp offset. I
> believe that this discrepancy among voice parts is likely due to the
> pitch/frequency correlations documented in the experiments using
> relatively untrained subjects. None of the other voices overlap much
> of the range where this sharp bias shows up in these curves.]

I still have not been informed as to the meaning of "pitch/frequency
correlations." Also, what does it have to do with the present discussion?
Since the "sharp bias" shows up in untrained subjects, I fail to see what it
has to do with highly trained and experienced singers hearing and performing
the high third.

>> bob is referring to the well-known psychoacoustical phenomenon in
>> which, especially given a sine-wave timbre, subjects invariably
>> choose melodic octaves slightly *wider* than 2:1 as "correct".

> [Yes again. This research was cited by Paul in the
> discussions following the Jerries examples, and the apparent total
> lack of any conceptual linkage to that in this response baffles me
> once again. If we have to re-establish context every time we respond,
> this is going to be a hopeless little, or maybe big, journey.]

This is the kind of verbiage that drives me to frustration. Again, what do
sopranos have to do with sine-wave experiments? Either make the connection
or drop it. If you think there is a "conceptual linkage," please describe
it. Concerning re-establishing context, I'm not sure you and I have yet
established a mutual context. Whether we do will largely depend on our
continuing clarifications.

-----------------
>>
Bob:
>>>> This learning experience has taught me that the ear learns to
>>>> correlate frequency and pitch in an increasingly objective way. I
>>>> therefore feel that those with poor intonation sense have simply
>>>> not "objectified" their ears in this way and thus easily fall prey to
>>>> whatever psychoacoustic anomolies might assail them.
>>>
Me:

>>> I don't know what you are saying here, Bob. My ear (which I'm quite sure is
>>> not a "naïve" one) cannot *hear* frequency. (It can't even count to ten.) My
>>> ear also cannot *hear* pitch out of tonal context, in the sense of naming it
>>> Eb or F#. So what do you mean by the phrase "correlate frequency and pitch"?
>>
>> he means, for example, hearing 2:1 melodic octaves as "in tune"
>> (though i question whether even bob could do this with sine waves in
>> an extreme register).

> [Right, Paul. Again, all reference to the cited research seems to
> have been lost here. The closest objective correlate to pitch that
> any of us know about is frequency. The whole Jerries experiment would
> be meaningless without the experimental controls in terms of
> frequency, so why are we trying to throw it out here?]

No one is trying to throw out frequency. My comment above had to do with the
fact that you said "the ear learns to correlate frequency and pitch in an
increasingly objective way." What does that mean? After you clarify that, we
can talk about keeping it (with *your* meaning) or throwing it out. :-)

------------

Bob:

>>>> There are without any doubt, as I see it, psychoacoustic phenomena
>>>> that predispose naive ears towards perceptions that do not support
>>>> miminum tuning dissonance in the context of harmony, i.e., JI
>>>> harmony.

Me:

>>> And what might those be?

Paul:

>> geez, i thought i gave an goodly number of examples of these types of
>> psychoacoustical phenomena already -- several weeks ago if i remember
>> correctly.

(My response to Paul is omitted here. Bob doesn't comment on it [so what's
new?] so I guess he thought it was reasonable.)

> [Is the psychoacoustic phenomenon we're discussing, namely the
> subjective pitch difference in a tone of constant *FREQUENCY* with a
> change in context, not a case in point!!!!???? ...Is not this
> whole "high third" theory based on the idea that this phenomenon
> conditions some people's ears to re-inject into a triad a third that
> is higher to a just third than even 12-EDO thirds? Is that not a
> psychoacoustic phenomenon that by your own explicit agreement in a
> previous post predisposes the ear away from JI, Jerry? How did we
> get this lost? I was not being in the least abstract here, but rather
> referring directly to the phenomenon under discussion!]

Actually, pretty close, Bob. I suspect that our miscommunication lies more
with your apparent attempt to camouflage your sudden change of perception
than with the actual issues here.

I don't think I'd use the term "re-inject" but I think I know what you mean.
I also think I know what you *think* you mean when you say you have
"overcome" the illusion; however, you haven't responded to my suspicion that
you simply have *chosen* to ignore the high-third effect. That might be a
good thing to do next, don't you think? I have a hard time believing that
you "forgot" how to focus on the high third having done it before.

------------------

Bob said:
>
>>>> Yet the tuning dissonances that arise in sufficiently non-JI
>>>> harmonies do not go away simply because some of these phenomena
>>>> predispose the ear away from JI.

Me:
>>>
>>> Did anyone here say that dissonance goes away because of psychoacoustic
>>> phenomena?

Paul:
>>
>> no. bob is just completing the logic in his argument, not suggesting
>> that anyone said this in particular.

> [Well, I'm not sure I confine myself to that, Paul. It is true that I
> am just completing the logic of my argument here, and meant nothing
> behond that. Jerry has clearly stated, and reconfirmed my summary to
> this effect, that his reinjected, literally supra-ET high third
> sounds "in tune" to his ear. To me that implies that this deceptive
> pitch illusion we're dealing with somehow generates for some
> musicians' ears a new pitch that is "away from JI",...one that he
> feels sounds "in tune", whatever that could possibly mean in this
> context. If "in tune" means "no tuning dissonance" or even "reduced
> tuning dissonance", then he has clearly implied that somehow the
> tuning dissonance of his literally high third has been ameliorated by
> a psychoacoustic phenomenon that predisposes the ear away from JI.]

Actually, not bad, Bob. You apparently have the basics pretty well in hand.
In fact, your choice of terms throws a kind of fresh glow on the subject.
>>
>>> Bob, I appreciate your time and effort here but this makes little sense to
>>> me. You clearly believe "something" but what it is doesn't strike any
>>> familiar chords in my musical experience.

> [Well, again with all due respect, Jerry, I think I have probably
> made it abundantly clear that your musical experiences, at least as
> described in the current discussion, are at least as completely alien
> to me. So I would be surprised if my experiences mapped nicely into
> yours. I don't think that we can can reasonably expect one to map
> into the other without it being mutual.]

My sentiments precisely. In that regard, I sense that a "straight ahead"
exchange (as in this post) will help us blow away the distractions and focus
on the helpful. Paul has my full blessing in "siding with" you. We are not
competing for bragging rights here. We're trying to understand and describe
a phenomenon that is commonly experienced.

As we proceed, I suggest that we (and others) try to minimize dogmatic
claims about the implications of this or that "study" without solid
experience or evidence that it applies here. I think that will help.

------------

Paul said:

>> i have the exact opposite reaction. bob, in fact, has struck so many
>> familiar chords in my musical experience since joining this list last
>> year, that 'meeting' him will be an experience i'll never forget. but
>> that's besides the point -- again, i'm not trying to side with him
>> against you or anything like that -- my motto here is "jus' da facts,
>> man".

Bob said:

> [Well, I don't think human feelings should be beside the point here.
> It is not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings, and hope I haven't.

You haven't.

> Paul and I have certainly had our scraps here, as anyone who has been
> here for awhile or looked thoroughly through the archives must know.
> However, Paul's challenges to my thinking have deepened my
> understanding very substantially. I hope this is true for Jerry, too.

It is, and I have said so many times.

> I respect Paul as extremely erudite, a professional blues guitarist
> (I love it!) and practicing microtonalist (witness his guitar
> collection), and mathematician, who is also incredibly well-versed in
> tuning history and stylistic evolution from medieval times and even
> much earlier. I love that we can discuss jazz, blues, "classical",
> middle eastern, and other ethnic music with him and he's right on top
> of it. Fantastic! I have utmost respect for you, Paul, and your words
> really warm my heart.]

Paul, please stand for heart-felt round of applause! :-)

----------------

I said:
>>
>>> By the way, now that you have disposed of "naïve" ears, does that mean you
>>> don't intend to do the "experiment" with your choir?

> [Please do not take my phrase "naive ears" out of the context in
> which it was used, namely the psychoacoustic experiments correlating
> pitch and frequency that Paul recognized as my reference above. I did
> refer to them as "the famous pitch/frequency correlation curves" or
> something like that. The subjects in those experiments were not
> experts in tuning anything. I am not so up on these things that I
> remember specific references, and am therefore unable to document
> things as if I were writing a thesis.]

Fair enough. In that case, perhaps such references are better left out.
Agree?

-------------------------

Paul said to me:

>> i think jerry10.wav is the best
>> test of it yet. unfortunately, you and i are the only people who have
>> listened to it. come on, folks! is *anyone* out there?
>
Bob said:

> [I will listen soon. I have no idea what it contains other than
> something along the lines of the previous Jerries with some new
> variation that I don't want to know about beforehand. I will just
> listen and give a detailed report on what I heard.

No doubling back this time. Okay?

> I will also try
> the experiment with the choir, but there will be an inevitable delay
> in that. We just finished a very successful performance for the local
> community concert association. (We love getting substantial revenues
> when they had all the expenses and the work for promotion, etc.) We
> have a recording session Tuesday and then the choir gets a well-
> deserved vacation for awhile. I don't want to burn them out. That
> leaves no opportunities for anything non-essential until we
> reconvene.]
>
Thanks, Bob. Now that I'm sure you understand the "experiment" your feedback
on this will be helpful.

By the way, at Paul's prompting, I dug out a recording of the "experiment"
that I posted last time. As you will see, it only takes a few seconds. If
you can work it into your warm-up tomorrow it would be terrific. I suggest
that you not tell the singers what you are listening for. Just tell them to
seek the "best" tuning and to ignore the piano's "comparison" pitch.

Also, I ran across five mp3s that demonstrate what I have been talking about
here. I had forgotten about them. Perhaps they will help us determine what
this thing is all about.

You can find all of these items at:

<http://stage3music.com/soundpage.html>

Or:

<http://www.stage3music.com/soundpage.html>

Bob, I have a good feeling about your responses here. I think we have begun
to follow the "credo" I described in an earlier post about persistent
communication until both parties feel they understand what the other is
saying. I hope this is not making you horny, however. :-) (You have to have
seen my earlier post in order to "get" that. If you haven't, ignore it,
please.)

Jerry

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

> However, I also realize (at least, I believe so) that singers and
string
> players frequently perform an *actual* high third that
approximates the
> illusionary one. There is little disagreement about that.

little disagreement about that? among whom? so far, you seem
to be alone in thinking that this makes sense, jerry :(

>
> > However, it is
> > not at all rare to find sopranos with a perpetual sharp offset. I
> > believe that this discrepancy among voice parts is likely due
to the
> > pitch/frequency correlations documented in the experiments
using
> > relatively untrained subjects. None of the other voices overlap
much
> > of the range where this sharp bias shows up in these
curves.]
>
> I still have not been informed as to the meaning of
"pitch/frequency
> correlations."

again:

*frequency* is the actual, physically measureable rate of
vibration.

*pitch* is the _perceived_ 'height' of the tone, measurable only in
psychological experiments.

most of the psychoacoustical phenomena i discussed concern
'anomalies' in the correlation between pitch and frequency,
especially in untrained listeners. while many of the anomalies
are quite striking, a non-monotonic relationship between pitch
and frequency, which your own recent theory would suggest
happens with intervals in the area *between* 386 and 404 cents,
has no precedent in the psychoacoustic literature, as far as i am
aware.

> This is the kind of verbiage that drives me to frustration. Again,
what do
> sopranos have to do with sine-wave experiments?

i said *especially* with sine waves, not *only* with sine waves.
the effect decreases to the extent that loud harmonic partials are
present in the timbre -- with typical human voices, a small
amount of stretching is *still* preferred in the tuning of melodic
octaves.

> > [Is the psychoacoustic phenomenon we're discussing,
namely the
> > subjective pitch difference in a tone of constant
*FREQUENCY* with a
> > change in context, not a case in point!!!!???? ...Is not this
> > whole "high third" theory based on the idea that this
phenomenon
> > conditions some people's ears to re-inject into a triad a third
that
> > is higher to a just third than even 12-EDO thirds? Is that not a
> > psychoacoustic phenomenon that by your own explicit
agreement in a
> > previous post predisposes the ear away from JI, Jerry? How
did we
> > get this lost? I was not being in the least abstract here, but
rather
> > referring directly to the phenomenon under discussion!]
>
> Actually, pretty close, Bob. I suspect that our
miscommunication lies more
> with your apparent attempt to camouflage your sudden change
of perception
> than with the actual issues here.

if we proceed with such a low level of mutual respect, no one is
going to learn anything. come on folks, let's grow up here.

first of all, bob had little or no idea what your theory was, or how
his observations might or might not fit with it, when he went back
and listened to the examples, and his perception changed.

secondly, on at least one occasion, you downloaded a sound file
i produced, and heard something that you didn't hear on
subsequent downloads. why is that ok for you but not for bob?

thirdly, why would you think bob 'forgot how to focus on the high
third' when the pitch shift he previously heard in all the examples,
he still hears in jerry01 though jerry07? wouldn't a much simpler,
more reasonable explanation be that the *same phenomenon*
was at work in *all* the pitch shifts, but that he had just attuned
himself to the specific intervals in jerry00, and hence began to
hear that example with a better frequency/pitch correlation? how
can you continue to avoid the issue of the pitch shifts in the other
jerries?

> > [Please do not take my phrase "naive ears" out of the context
in
> > which it was used, namely the psychoacoustic experiments
correlating
> > pitch and frequency that Paul recognized as my reference
above. I did
> > refer to them as "the famous pitch/frequency correlation
curves" or
> > something like that. The subjects in those experiments were
not
> > experts in tuning anything. I am not so up on these things
that I
> > remember specific references, and am therefore unable to
document
> > things as if I were writing a thesis.]
>
> Fair enough. In that case, perhaps such references are better
left out.
> Agree?

i certainly hope that we can rest upon well-documented
psychoacoustical phenomena and not have to discover them all
"from scratch"! i supplied some specific references -- let me
know what else i can do.

On 4/1/02 6:07 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 20:55:39 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>>> geez, i thought i gave an goodly number of examples of these types of
>>> psychoacoustical phenomena already -- several weeks ago if i remember
>>> correctly.
>>
>> I don't remember you relating any of them to "naïve ears."
>
> well, typically the subjects for such experiments are chosen to be
> musically untrained subjects, unless otherwise indicated.
> though i suppose we would have to go back to the original
> literature to make sure.

Is it really worth it? If not, forget it.

---------------------
>
>> However, your attempt at "clarification" here is little more than a weak
>> defense. You, as has Bob, simply apply your *theory* without regard for
>> practical experience. (Sine waves and sopranos--give me a break!)
>>
>> (Since you were so much in accord with Bob's post,
>> why didn't *you* respond to my points?
>
> sorry -- are you talking to me? what would you like me to respond
> to?

Sounds like I was having a bad-hair day, Paul. I guess I expected *someone*
to show how sine waves and sopranos have anything to do with our "research"
here.

>> I'm sure you don't miss anything
>> here. In fact, why haven't you responded to *all* of my points in regard to
>> *this* post? Do you agree with anything I have said here?

More bad hair?
>
> *this* post? how do you know in advance that i haven't
> responded to all the posts? well, since you're obviously psychic,
> since i haven't, the reason is that this was a conversation
> between you and bob, and i jumped in -- bob has now
> responded, to all the points i believe, so you should look at his
> response and see if it makes any more sense to you.

Evidently, he didn't. I don't remember for sure. However, that's likely why
I turned to you for help.

-----------
>
>> Got it. If I slip up, remind me again. Actually, I don't think it matters.
>
> i think it matters a great deal if the third is on top or not, with
> regard to the known psychoacoustical phenomena in which
> pitches 'push each other apart'.

See! That's the kind of corrective response that feeds my growth.
>
Thanks, Paul.

Jerry

On 4/2/02 10:45 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 03:30:44 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>> However, I also realize (at least, I believe so) that singers and string
>> players frequently perform an *actual* high third that approximates the
>> illusionary one. There is little disagreement about that.
>
> little disagreement about that? among whom? so far, you seem
> to be alone in thinking that this makes sense, jerry :(
>
I guess we run in different circles, Paul. I've "known" this all my life,
and that means it probably was assimilated from many sources through the
years. Sorry you seem to have missed out on it.

On the contrary, I seem to remember you discussing personal tuning
preferences and artistic deviations. You may, in fact, be the source of some
of my thinking here.
>
--------------------

>>> However, it is
>>> not at all rare to find sopranos with a perpetual sharp offset. I
>>> believe that this discrepancy among voice parts is likely due to the
>>> pitch/frequency correlations documented in the experiments using
>>> relatively untrained subjects. None of the other voices overlap much
>>> of the range where this sharp bias shows up in these curves.]
>>
>> I still have not been informed as to the meaning of "pitch/frequency
>> correlations."
>
> again:
>
> *frequency* is the actual, physically measureable rate of
> vibration.

No surprise here.
>
> *pitch* is the _perceived_ 'height' of the tone, measurable only in
> psychological experiments.

No surprise here.
>
> most of the psychoacoustical phenomena i discussed concern
> 'anomalies' in the correlation between pitch and frequency,
> especially in untrained listeners. while many of the anomalies
> are quite striking, a non-monotonic relationship between pitch
> and frequency, which your own recent theory would suggest
> happens with intervals in the area *between* 386 and 404 cents,
> has no precedent in the psychoacoustic literature, as far as i am
> aware.

Although I also know the meaning of "correlation," I still see no connection
to the present discussion. As I said before, we are not talking about
"untrained" listeners here.

--------------
>
>> This is the kind of verbiage that drives me to frustration. Again, what do
>> sopranos have to do with sine-wave experiments?
>
> i said *especially* with sine waves, not *only* with sine waves.
> the effect decreases to the extent that loud harmonic partials are
> present in the timbre -- with typical human voices, a small
> amount of stretching is *still* preferred in the tuning of melodic
> octaves.

Enough to affect our findings here?
>
>>> [Is the psychoacoustic phenomenon we're discussing, namely the
>>> subjective pitch difference in a tone of constant *FREQUENCY* with a
>>> change in context, not a case in point!!!!???? ...Is not this
>>> whole "high third" theory based on the idea that this phenomenon
>>> conditions some people's ears to re-inject into a triad a third that
>>> is higher to a just third than even 12-EDO thirds? Is that not a
>>> psychoacoustic phenomenon that by your own explicit agreement in a
>>> previous post predisposes the ear away from JI, Jerry? How did we
>>> get this lost? I was not being in the least abstract here, but rather
>>> referring directly to the phenomenon under discussion!]
>>
>> Actually, pretty close, Bob. I suspect that our miscommunication lies more
>> with your apparent attempt to camouflage your sudden change of perception
>> than with the actual issues here.
>
> if we proceed with such a low level of mutual respect, no one is
> going to learn anything. come on folks, let's grow up here.

Don't confuse honest observations with personal respect. Mutual respect
doesn't mean keeping your mouth shut when you think someone may have arrived
at an erroneous conclusion. Without honest exchange of ideas, there can be
no progress toward clarification of "apparent" conflict. Mutual respect also
includes *listening* and asking questions. Without that, no one learns much
of anything.

I have learned over the months to respond honestly to you, even when you get
a bit "hot," and I think you understand that my respect for you is high. It
would be good for the process here if more of us considered apparent
"criticism" in the spirit of honest discourse. I simply have said what I
think is true. When clearly shown wrong, I'll change my thinking. After all,
my thinking is all I have to work with when it comes to the bottom line.
>
> first of all, bob had little or no idea what your theory was, or how
> his observations might or might not fit with it, when he went back
> and listened to the examples, and his perception changed.

Paul, you, Bob and I have hashed this out off line. I agreed to drop it.
Let's do that. (Perhaps you posted this before our exchange. If so, never
mind.)
>
> secondly, on at least one occasion, you downloaded a sound file
> i produced, and heard something that you didn't hear on
> subsequent downloads. why is that ok for you but not for bob?

Oh, come on, Paul. Now who needs to grow up? (No disrespect intended. :-)
>
> thirdly, why would you think bob 'forgot how to focus on the high
> third' when the pitch shift he previously heard in all the examples,
> he still hears in jerry01 though jerry07? wouldn't a much simpler,
> more reasonable explanation be that the *same phenomenon*
> was at work in *all* the pitch shifts, but that he had just attuned
> himself to the specific intervals in jerry00, and hence began to
> hear that example with a better frequency/pitch correlation? how
> can you continue to avoid the issue of the pitch shifts in the other
> jerries?

I looked this morning for the post in which Bob described a "change" in his
ability to hear the high third, but I couldn't find it. I'm pretty sure he
was talking to Joe at the time. I remember that Joe had likened the effect
to seeing a "picture" within a color maze.

In any case, that is why and where I inquired as to how one could "forget"
something he had already seen/heard--be it real or illusionary. That would
seem to be a reasonable question to ask in that context, don't you think? I
never got an answer or a clarification, however.

Look. Just because someone questions (points out possible holes) in
someone's reported perception doesn't mean disrespect for the speaker.
However, a certain disrespect does comes with ignoring the question.

Regarding pitch shifts: As you may realize by now (after reading my off-line
comments), Bob reported that the pitch shift in jerrie00 was decidedly more
evident than in any of the other jerries, which he described as "fuzzy." I
hope this helps you to understand why I have "interpreted" his reported
perceptions as I have.

---------------

>>> [Please do not take my phrase "naive ears" out of the context in
>>> which it was used, namely the psychoacoustic experiments correlating
>>> pitch and frequency that Paul recognized as my reference above. I did
>>> refer to them as "the famous pitch/frequency correlation curves" or
>>> something like that. The subjects in those experiments were not
>>> experts in tuning anything. I am not so up on these things that I
>>> remember specific references, and am therefore unable to document
>>> things as if I were writing a thesis.]
>>
>> Fair enough. In that case, perhaps such references are better left out.
>> Agree?
>
> i certainly hope that we can rest upon well-documented
> psychoacoustical phenomena and not have to discover them all
> "from scratch"! i supplied some specific references -- let me
> know what else i can do.
>
Simply be reasonably sure that any well-documented phenomena quoted actually
applies (or likely may apply) to an issues under discussion; and when it
does, make every effort to show *how* it applies. Sometimes I get the
impression that you sometimes toss "studies" into the arena simply to squash
someone's expressed idea and put an end to their point.

Incidentally, I took Bob's paragraph (above) to mean that he had some
reservations in that regard and was being honest in "withdrawing" the
reference. Now *that* engenders respect.

Again, Paul, thanks for tossing your "questions" into the discussion. I hope
my responses have been helpful in clarifying my point of view.

Jerry

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

> > most of the psychoacoustical phenomena i discussed concern
> > 'anomalies' in the correlation between pitch and frequency,
> > especially in untrained listeners. while many of the anomalies
> > are quite striking, a non-monotonic relationship between pitch
> > and frequency, which your own recent theory would suggest
> > happens with intervals in the area *between* 386 and 404 cents,
> > has no precedent in the psychoacoustic literature, as far as i am
> > aware.
>
> Although I also know the meaning of "correlation," I still see no
connection
> to the present discussion. As I said before, we are not talking about
> "untrained" listeners here.

well, if it's a result of a particular system or culture of training,
rather than inborn, then it's not really a precise acoustical
'illusion' that is universally reproducible. if you agree with this,
what chance do you honestly feel we have of pinning it down to finer
than a 0.2 cent accuracy and have it mean very much for very many people?

> >> This is the kind of verbiage that drives me to frustration.
Again, what do
> >> sopranos have to do with sine-wave experiments?
> >
> > i said *especially* with sine waves, not *only* with sine waves.
> > the effect decreases to the extent that loud harmonic partials are
> > present in the timbre -- with typical human voices, a small
> > amount of stretching is *still* preferred in the tuning of melodic
> > octaves.
>
> Enough to affect our findings here?

absolutely. we're talking relatively *large* amounts of stretching --
*far* more than our 0.2 cent increments -- this is one of the "nutty
professor's" favorite topics -- ignore his rants and go straight for
the references.

> >
> > thirdly, why would you think bob 'forgot how to focus on the high
> > third' when the pitch shift he previously heard in all the examples,
> > he still hears in jerry01 though jerry07? wouldn't a much simpler,
> > more reasonable explanation be that the *same phenomenon*
> > was at work in *all* the pitch shifts, but that he had just attuned
> > himself to the specific intervals in jerry00, and hence began to
> > hear that example with a better frequency/pitch correlation? how
> > can you continue to avoid the issue of the pitch shifts in the other
> > jerries?
>
> > i certainly hope that we can rest upon well-documented
> > psychoacoustical phenomena and not have to discover them all
> > "from scratch"! i supplied some specific references -- let me
> > know what else i can do.
> >
> Simply be reasonably sure that any well-documented phenomena quoted
actually
> applies (or likely may apply) to an issues under discussion; and when it
> does, make every effort to show *how* it applies.

i try, and will continue to.

peace,
paul

On 4/3/02 7:18 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 02:25:41 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>>> most of the psychoacoustical phenomena i discussed concern
>>> 'anomalies' in the correlation between pitch and frequency,
>>> especially in untrained listeners. while many of the anomalies
>>> are quite striking, a non-monotonic relationship between pitch
>>> and frequency, which your own recent theory would suggest
>>> happens with intervals in the area *between* 386 and 404 cents,
>>> has no precedent in the psychoacoustic literature, as far as i am
>>> aware.
>>
>> Although I also know the meaning of "correlation," I still see no connection
>> to the present discussion. As I said before, we are not talking about
>> "untrained" listeners here.
>
> well, if it's a result of a particular system or culture of training,
> rather than inborn, then it's not really a precise acoustical
> 'illusion' that is universally reproducible. if you agree with this,
> what chance do you honestly feel we have of pinning it down to finer
> than a 0.2 cent accuracy and have it mean very much for very many people?

A reasonable question, to be sure. I suppose the obvious answer is that it
will be meaningful to anyone who has been exposed to JI triads to the extent
that they (like me) have "learned" to hear the third higher than ET.

I'm beginning to share your doubts about finding a *real* frequency that
matches the illusion. To my ear (and to many here who have heard the
jerries) your last batch is in the ballpark.

Perhaps someone would measure the frequencies on my "amusing" high-third
demos. (Measure *between* the wobbles, of course.) That might be helpful in
making the decision whether or not to go any further with high-third
jerries.
>
>>>> This is the kind of verbiage that drives me to frustration. Again, what do
>>>> sopranos have to do with sine-wave experiments?
>>>
>>> i said *especially* with sine waves, not *only* with sine waves.
>>> the effect decreases to the extent that loud harmonic partials are
>>> present in the timbre -- with typical human voices, a small
>>> amount of stretching is *still* preferred in the tuning of melodic
>>> octaves.
>>
>> Enough to affect our findings here?
>
> absolutely. we're talking relatively *large* amounts of stretching --
> *far* more than our 0.2 cent increments -- this is one of the "nutty
> professor's" favorite topics -- ignore his rants and go straight for
> the references.
>
I mentioned off list that this stretching effect may not apply here since
the "illusion" seems to work in both the 4:5:6 triad as well as the 2:3:5
version.
>>>
>>> thirdly, why would you think bob 'forgot how to focus on the high
>>> third' when the pitch shift he previously heard in all the examples,
>>> he still hears in jerry01 though jerry07? wouldn't a much simpler,
>>> more reasonable explanation be that the *same phenomenon*
>>> was at work in *all* the pitch shifts, but that he had just attuned
>>> himself to the specific intervals in jerry00, and hence began to
>>> hear that example with a better frequency/pitch correlation? how
>>> can you continue to avoid the issue of the pitch shifts in the other
>>> jerries?

For any who may be reading along: Bob said he heard the pitch shift more
prominently (less "fuzzy") in jerry00 (JI) than in jerries 01-07 (*real*
high thirds). I didn't "avoid" anything. I just read what Bob said.
>>
>>> i certainly hope that we can rest upon well-documented
>>> psychoacoustical phenomena and not have to discover them all
>>> "from scratch"! i supplied some specific references -- let me
>>> know what else i can do.
>>>
>> Simply be reasonably sure that any well-documented phenomena quoted actually
>> applies (or likely may apply) to an issues under discussion; and when it
>> does, make every effort to show *how* it applies.
>
> i try, and will continue to.
>
I thank you and the god of clarity thanks you. :-)

Jerry

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

> I'm beginning to share your doubts about finding a *real* frequency
that
> matches the illusion. To my ear (and to many here who have heard the
> jerries) your last batch is in the ballpark.
>
> Perhaps someone would measure the frequencies on my "amusing" high-
third
> demos. (Measure *between* the wobbles, of course.) That might be
helpful in
> making the decision whether or not to go any further with high-third
> jerries.

if you understand the 'classical uncertainty principle' that i've
posted in the past, and understand what it would mean to 'measure
between the wobbles', you could conclude that any such measurement
will have a statistical uncertainty associated with it, far larger
than an increment of 0.2 cents.

> >
> >>>> This is the kind of verbiage that drives me to frustration.
Again, what do
> >>>> sopranos have to do with sine-wave experiments?
> >>>
> >>> i said *especially* with sine waves, not *only* with sine waves.
> >>> the effect decreases to the extent that loud harmonic partials
are
> >>> present in the timbre -- with typical human voices, a small
> >>> amount of stretching is *still* preferred in the tuning of
melodic
> >>> octaves.
> >>
> >> Enough to affect our findings here?
> >
> > absolutely. we're talking relatively *large* amounts of
stretching --
> > *far* more than our 0.2 cent increments -- this is one of
the "nutty
> > professor's" favorite topics -- ignore his rants and go straight
for
> > the references.
> >
> I mentioned off list that this stretching effect may not apply here
since
> the "illusion" seems to work in both the 4:5:6 triad as well as the
2:3:5
> version.

does it? i haven't done the parallel 4:5:6 version yet -- i guess i
will do that, as well as the two versions you requested offline where
the root-third or root-tenth dyad is held at the end.

of course, i can't hear any of these illusions in the first place (my
ears must be a little unusual), so this all depends on a decent
number of people listening to these examples once i create them.

meanwhile, your theory doesn't seem to be holding up to reports of
the six or so other correpondents who listened to jerry10. do you
have any comments? care to propose any modifications to *that*
experiment that you think might be helpful?

peace,
paul

> Perhaps someone would measure the frequencies on my "amusing" high-
third
> demos. (Measure *between* the wobbles, of course.) That might be
helpful in
> making the decision whether or not to go any further with high-third
> jerries.

Bob Wendell:
I assume "amusing" is a reference to my use of that word in an
earlier post. "Amusing", if you go back and read my post and refrain
from divorcing the word from context, describes my enjoyment of
the "almost irrestible attraction" that a clean, just 4:5 third has
for the ear. It refers to that and nothing more. You also did this
with "naive" when I used it to refer to experimental subjects in a
well-known study of pitch/frequency correlation.

I ask that you please read with context in mind and refrain from
automatically applying to yourself adjectives you find disagreeable,
without any thought to their actual targets, just because I
challenge your position. I also beg you to refrain from subtle and
prejudicial polemics in our threads such as the reference to my use
of "amusing". If you felt insulted by my honest depiction of my
perceptions, then I feel that discourages the clear, honest statement
of opinions, something you have said you value.

If your ideas have real merit, then it is unnecessary to resort to
any tactics aimed at discrediting challenges to them. Instead I
suggest using clear reasoning. I have responded to your position by
stating my understanding of it for you succinctly in easy-to-
understand steps, and as requested, you confirmed with no
reservations whatsoever that my understanding was indeed accurate.

So far you have failed to respond in kind. I have only received
responses characterized by defensive distortions of my positions. No
description of yours relating to my position has come close to
anything I could confirm as accurate.

Paul understands my position so well he was actually able to very
effectively answer as if he were I in responding to one of your posts
step by step. He did an accurate, absolutely stellar job. I couldn't
have done it better myself. You, on the other hand, even with
plentiful corrective input from both Paul and me, have consistently
distorted my position, with all kinds of projections concerning my
motives and supposed desire to coerce you and others into my way of
thinking. So far, the more we try to correct you understading of my
position, the more entangled it gets...endlessly.

I have clearly stated your position, which in spite of my clarity
concerning what it is, frankly makes no sense to me. I ask you to
make a similarly honest and forthright attempt to understand my
postion; not to agreee with it, but to simply demonstrate to me that
you understand it clearly. If you attempt this till you get it right,
I will confirm its accuracy for you.

Only after you've done this can we have a reliable platform from
which to conduct further communications. I ask that any such further
communications be free of accusations of alledged ulterior motives
and that you accept my statements concerning my perceptions at face
value wihtout questioning my integrity in describing them. You don't
have to agree with them, but only accept them as my honestly
described perceptions.

I also ask that if you're not capable of responding without logical
flaws in your conclusions and responses regarding either your
perceptions or our communications with each other, that you at least
remain open to corrections to those flaws when we point them out,
rather than simply resorting to disparaging polemics and doubts
concerning the integrity of our motives.

Please respond step by step with clear, well-reasoned statements and
questions. This will provide a simple format that allows quick, well-
placed responses that correct any misperceptions and logical flaws
without getting buried in unproductive rhetoric.

These are the only conditions under which I agree to spend my
precious time in further discussion in this particular thread. Thank
you in advance for your cooperation, Jerry.

Sincerely,

Bob