Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1978

On 3/22/02 1:13 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:03:53 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: New jerries
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>> On 3/20/02 8:02 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>>
>>> From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
>>> Subject: Re: New jerries
>>>
>>> i was planning to make them further apart. why should they be closer
>>> together? you failed to find any preference for jerry01, even though
>>> it was *between* the two you found the most preference for. do you
>>> really think anything is to be gained by going *even closer*?
>>
>> Paul,
>>
>> My suggest would be to explore the "space" immediately higher and lower than
>> jerry07. (That was the only one I sometimes heard as "slightl> lower.") I
>> don't have the numbers in front of me now, but I also remember that jerry04
>> was also "close." (Were they close to each other?)
>
> you said everyone liked jerry04 the best, but we had
>
> jerry07 403.442
> jerry01 403.642
> jerry04 403.842

Eeeuck! Sorry about that. At first, 04 seemed to be the favorite, Then 07
moved up, as I remember. Also, 07 was the one that appeared low on some
occasions. Okay, Paul, do what you think best. Want to include 403.542 and
403.742 this time?
>
>> Since you have the ability to nudge the jerry thirds, it would be
> helpful to
>> me to explore the most likely vicinity for the one that matches
> (sounds "in
>> tune" with) both "my" high third and the jerry00's illusionary
> third. So
>> far, the area surrounding jerry07 seems to be the place to "shop."
>
> ok, but the next set of jerries will again be 'blind', and i must ask
> you to agree not to put them into your software, at least not at
> first . . .
>
>
You got it!

Jerry

On 3/22/02 1:13 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:05:32 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1976
>
Jerry asked, in response to an Erlich post:
>>
>> What is an "actual" third? Since I consider the physical (actual?) third to
>> *be* the JI third,

Paul answered:
>
> i mean the *actual* third that is sung, whether it's ji or not.
>
>> it hardly can be "between" it's self.
>
> i mean an *actual* third at, say, 395 cents.
>
> better?

Not really? What *is* a third at, say, 395 cents. That's fairly meaningless
to me except that it might be somewhere around a JI third. I know the sound
of a JI third by having sung it at a "beatless" position. I wouldn't know
*how* to sing a third at 395 cents.

In any case, I don't think I can respond to your "restatement" of what you
think I think.

I hope my little diagram helps to clarify where my thinking is. Beyond that,
I know nothing, suspect nothing, or conclude nothing.

I'll look for your response to my little "picture."

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/22/02 1:13 AM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 9
> > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:03:53 -0000
> > From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: New jerries
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> >> On 3/20/02 8:02 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: "paulerlich" <paul@s...>
> >>> Subject: Re: New jerries
> >>>
> >>> i was planning to make them further apart. why should they be
closer
> >>> together? you failed to find any preference for jerry01, even
though
> >>> it was *between* the two you found the most preference for. do
you
> >>> really think anything is to be gained by going *even closer*?
> >>
> >> Paul,
> >>
> >> My suggest would be to explore the "space" immediately higher
and lower than
> >> jerry07. (That was the only one I sometimes heard as "slightl>
lower.") I
> >> don't have the numbers in front of me now, but I also remember
that jerry04
> >> was also "close." (Were they close to each other?)
> >
> > you said everyone liked jerry04 the best, but we had
> >
> > jerry07 403.442
> > jerry01 403.642
> > jerry04 403.842
>
> Eeeuck! Sorry about that. At first, 04 seemed to be the favorite,
Then 07
> moved up, as I remember. Also, 07 was the one that appeared low on
some
> occasions. Okay, Paul, do what you think best. Want to include
403.542 and
> 403.742 this time?

i'm just wondering why you think no one liked jerry01 before. it
seems to me that precise tuning is making virtually no difference,
but i'll keep making more jerries so we can find out for sure, if you
really wish.