jerry10 listening

Paul,

You wrote:
> 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?

1. Where is the .wav file to download?
2. Once I have downloaded it, what am I to listen *for*?

If you will make a simple post with the above information, I'll give
it a try in the next couple of days. Don't say that some of us aren't
willing to give this a try, for whatever reason.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_36046.html#36046

> Paul,
>
> You wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 1. Where is the .wav file to download?
> 2. Once I have downloaded it, what am I to listen *for*?
>
> If you will make a simple post with the above information, I'll
give
> it a try in the next couple of days. Don't say that some of us
aren't
> willing to give this a try, for whatever reason.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Regrettably, I'm a little confused too. I've been following this
discussion, but I've had some other things on my mind as well (sorry
about that, that will never happen again... :) )

jerry10 isn't in the Tuning Math directory.

And yes, to repeat the chorus, what are we supposed to be listening
for again??

Maybe, Paul, just as a suggestion, next time you put out a "general
call" for listeners, it might be wise to do a small "reprise" so that
some of us who have been a little asleep can wake up to what we are
supposed to be doing...

Thanks!

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> Maybe, Paul, just as a suggestion, next time you put out a "general
> call" for listeners, it might be wise to do a small "reprise" so that
> some of us who have been a little asleep can wake up to what we are
> supposed to be doing...

It's not a matter of being asleep! If the subject matter is for a couple of people with a particular interest, cool. But if you want people to jump in, then plan it out, have clear directions (including where those damn files are!) and make it as easy as possible to get a larger number of (potentially) interested people involved.

If someone else can't be bothered with a proper setup, why should I?

BTW, I found the file buried in a second subdirectory in the perlich directory in the ATL files section. And I listened to it, in looping mode, a number of times, late last night...

Cheers,
Jon

At the risk of coming off like a bumper sticker, I found it! (On
second thought, do they really come off?)

Well, what I hear is simple:

1) A 2:3:5 triad (root, fifth, and tenth) tuned absolutely justly, so
much so that I had to wonder if I weren't just hearing overtones, but
there was no virtual fundamental an octave below the 2 frequency
(just a prominent differential tone, but clearly not a virtual
fundamental).

2) Then the tenth moves up to become quite sharp.

The harmonic content of the root and fifth are so rich that at high
listening levels I'm not completely sure I hear the original tenth
disappear, but almost seem to hear a second tenth come in over it and
significantly sharp to it. However, at lower listening levels, I tend
to hear a simple shift upward in pitch and no superimposition. The
beat rate is around 6-7 Hz. Judging purely from a sense of pitch
deviation and ignoring beat rates, I suspect the tenth is rising by
about 17 or 18 cents similar to the high thirds in Jerries 01-07.

hello from northampton, MA!

good to hear from you jon. i tried contacting you offlist, inquiring
about your health and that of your mom, but i didn't hear from you
. . . well good to know at least that you're up and running!

> 1. Where is the .wav file to download?

/tuning/files/perlich/wavs/

> 2. Once I have downloaded it, what am I to listen *for*?

does the upper note appear to rise, fall, or neither? any other
comments about what you hear are fine too.

peace,
paul

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> At the risk of coming off like a bumper sticker, I found it! (On
> second thought, do they really come off?)
>
> Well, what I hear is simple:
>
> 1) A 2:3:5 triad (root, fifth, and tenth) tuned absolutely justly, so
> much so that I had to wonder if I weren't just hearing overtones,
but
> there was no virtual fundamental

you mean no real fundamental?

> an octave below the 2 frequency
> (just a prominent differential tone, but clearly not a virtual
> fundamental).

you mean not a 'real' fundamental, right? i think there most
definitely is a 'virtual' (illusionary) fundamental an octave below
the root -- no?

> 2) Then the tenth moves up to become quite sharp.
>
> The harmonic content of the root and fifth are so rich that at
high
> listening levels I'm not completely sure I hear the original tenth
> disappear, but almost seem to hear a second tenth come in
over it and
> significantly sharp to it. However, at lower listening levels, I
tend
> to hear a simple shift upward in pitch and no superimposition.

maybe at the louder levels you're hearing a summation tone:
2+3=5.

> The
> beat rate is around 6-7 Hz. Judging purely from a sense of
pitch
> deviation and ignoring beat rates, I suspect the tenth is rising
by
> about 17 or 18 cents similar to the high thirds in Jerries 01-07.

it rises between 13 and 14 cents, from 5/2 over the root to 1600
cents over the root.

so you don't hear the upper note move down in any sense?

Bob's current responses interspersed in square brackets:

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:
> > At the risk of coming off like a bumper sticker, I found it! (On
> > second thought, do they really come off?)
> >
> > Well, what I hear is simple:
> >
> > 1) A 2:3:5 triad (root, fifth, and tenth) tuned absolutely
justly, so
> > much so that I had to wonder if I weren't just hearing overtones,
> but
> > there was no virtual fundamental
>
> you mean no real fundamental?
>
> > an octave below the 2 frequency
> > (just a prominent differential tone, but clearly not a virtual
> > fundamental).
>
> you mean not a 'real' fundamental, right? i think there most
> definitely is a 'virtual' (illusionary) fundamental an octave below
> the root -- no?
[Well, I understand a virtual fundamental to be like what you *hear*
as a fundamental, on the phone, for example, even though it is not
really there. I don't hear such a virtual fundamental here; just a
prominent difference tone as previously stated. It doesn't sound like
a real fundamental as in a voice on the phone.]

>
> > 2) Then the tenth moves up to become quite sharp.
> >
> > The harmonic content of the root and fifth are so rich that at
> high
> > listening levels I'm not completely sure I hear the original
tenth
> > disappear, but almost seem to hear a second tenth come in
> over it and
> > significantly sharp to it. However, at lower listening levels, I
> tend
> > to hear a simple shift upward in pitch and no superimposition.
>
> maybe at the louder levels you're hearing a summation tone:
> 2+3=5. [That certainly might explain it.]
>
> > The
> > beat rate is around 6-7 Hz. Judging purely from a sense of
> pitch
> > deviation and ignoring beat rates, I suspect the tenth is rising
> by
> > about 17 or 18 cents similar to the high thirds in Jerries 01-07.
>
> it rises between 13 and 14 cents, from 5/2 over the root to 1600
> cents over the root.
[OK, but definitely sharp. No question.]
>
> so you don't hear the upper note move down in any sense?
[No, I do not hear any lowering of anything. Only a clean rise of the
tenth alone, and nothing else. It's the only change I hear in the
whole example. Everything else, including the context, stays
constant.]

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

/tuning/topicId_36046.html#36085

> hello from northampton, MA!
>
> good to hear from you jon. i tried contacting you offlist,
inquiring about your health and that of your mom, but i didn't hear
from you

***Ummm... something going on here that we don't know about?

Metatuning/private e-mail...

jp

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> good to hear from you jon. i tried contacting you offlist, inquiring
> about your health and that of your mom, but i didn't hear from you

Hmmm. I got the msg with the Rameau quote, but nothing following that.

> . . . well good to know at least that you're up and running!

Hanging in there is about it!

> > 2. Once I have downloaded it, what am I to listen *for*?
>
> does the upper note appear to rise, fall, or neither? any other
> comments about what you hear are fine too.

Found the file the other night, played it in 'looped' mode in Sound Forge to hear it continuously. For me, the note starts, then appears to go 'up' in pitch in the second half of the wave. With it looping, I can say that this stays somewhat regular, because looping back to the beginning it appears to drop, giving it a 'blue' tinge.

I have nothing to say about whether one is more in tune than the other, because it would depend on context, I suppose. The second half certainly seems to beat more...

Cheers,
Jon