Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1986

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

Jerry's response (no color change for IE):
:
>>>> Paul,
>>>>
>>>> My suggest would be to explore the "space" immediately higher and lower
>>>> than jerry07. (That was the only one I sometimes heard as "slightly
>>>>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.
>
I don't know, Paul. In my wish of wishes, we would find a frequency that
"locks" with the JI illusion. Not finding one doesn't belie the obvious (to
me, at least) that singers sing a third higher than ET and that there is a
"right" place to put it.

At least, your efforts have demonstrated that a well-tuned JI third produces
the impression of a "high" third (at least to Joe and I consciously and to
Bob subconsciously). For that I thank you very much.

Why jerry01 was not more popular I cannot say. Just keep in mind that the
closer one gets to a perfect 1:2 interval the more the turbulence, until it
actually focuses and "locks." Maybe that's the case here. You don't know
you're close until it hits you in the ear. I don't know. What do you think?

My impressions were that most of the jerries were "in the ball park." Yet,
none of them were "right on." It would be a shame to stop if we are on the
brink. It's your time and effort, babe. You call the shot.

Jerry

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

> >>>> My suggest would be to explore the "space" immediately higher
and lower
> >>>> than jerry07. (That was the only one I sometimes heard
as "slightly
> >>>>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

> Why jerry01 was not more popular I cannot say. Just keep in mind
that the
> closer one gets to a perfect 1:2 interval the more the turbulence,
until it
> actually focuses and "locks."

huh? once you're within 40 cents or so, the closer you get to a
perfect 1:2 interval, the *less* the turbulence . . . right?

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

> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 05:46:00 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1986
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
>
>>>>>> My suggest would be to explore the "space" immediately higher and lower
>>>>>> than jerry07. (That was the only one I sometimes heard as "slightly
>>>>>> 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
>
>> Why jerry01 was not more popular I cannot say. Just keep in mind that the
>> closer one gets to a perfect 1:2 interval the more the turbulence, until it
>> actually focuses and "locks."
>
> huh? once you're within 40 cents or so, the closer you get to a
> perfect 1:2 interval, the *less* the turbulence . . . right?

Paul, check out the charts on page 193 (at least in my copy) of Helmholtz's
"On the Sensations..." The hills and valley are clearly audible by sliding
one's voice upward very slowly. Note that the most dissonance within an
octave occurs very near the octave itself. Also, the "point" of the octave
valley seems very narrow. That's what I'm talking about.

I realize that in this experiment the "distances" are far smaller. My
comment above meant only that perhaps a similar principle might operate here
(on a far smaller scale, of course). We're (I'm) looking for the pitch that
"locks," in a manner similar to that in which a well-tuned octave "locks."

The point here is simply to conjecture as to why jerry01 got "slighted." If
that principle applies here, it offers a plausable answer. That's all.

Jerry

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

> >>>>> you said everyone liked jerry04 the best, but we had
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jerry07 403.442
> >>>>> jerry01 403.642
> >>>>> jerry04 403.842
> >
> >> Why jerry01 was not more popular I cannot say. Just keep in mind
that the
> >> closer one gets to a perfect 1:2 interval the more the
turbulence, until it
> >> actually focuses and "locks."
> >
> > huh? once you're within 40 cents or so, the closer you get to a
> > perfect 1:2 interval, the *less* the turbulence . . . right?
>
> Paul, check out the charts on page 193 (at least in my copy) of
Helmholtz's
> "On the Sensations..." The hills and valley are clearly audible by
sliding
> one's voice upward very slowly. Note that the most dissonance
within an
> octave occurs very near the octave itself.

yeah, about 40 cents away -- right?

> Also, the "point" of the octave
> valley seems very narrow.

yeah, about 40 cents wide in either direction -- right?

> That's what I'm talking about.

it's a long way from 40 cents to 0.1 cents.

> I realize that in this experiment the "distances" are far smaller.

oh, ok then, we understand each other . . . next week, you will get
lots more jerries, i promise.

anyone else listen to jerry10 here? anyone???

-paul

p.s. i have an entire yahoo group devoted to my version of
helmholtz's chart -- it's called harmonic_entropy.

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

> anyone else listen to jerry10 here? anyone???

I've got to get the sound fixed on my new computer. :(