Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1998

On 4/3/02 2:16 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 22:03:52 -0000
> From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- 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.
>
---------------------

>> 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.

Huh? I thought the first series was 4:5:6. That's why I suggested we put the
third on top. It's simply easier to hear that way. As far as I'm concerned,
the effect was equally evident in jerry0 and jerry00.
>
> 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.

I suspect that perception of the illusion depends upon having considerable
exposure to JI performance. I realize that this idea doesn't seem to jibe
with my observation that the effect occurs with novices, but then some of my
"novices" may have done significant group singing before they came to me.

Therefore, I'm not sure the tuning list is the best place to get a sampling
of who does and who doesn't hear the illusion. What do you think? I'm
curious about Joe's experience with JI performance. Any singing or string
playing, Joe?
>
> 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?

Nope. Just let the chips fall where they will.
>
> peace,
> paul

Likewise,
Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 4/3/02 2:16 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 15
> > Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 22:03:52 -0000
> > From: "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...>
> > Subject: Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
> >
> > --- 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.
> >
> ---------------------
>
> >> 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.
>
> Huh? I thought the first series was 4:5:6. That's why I suggested
we put the
> third on top. It's simply easier to hear that way. As far as I'm
concerned,
> the effect was equally evident in jerry0 and jerry00.

jerry0 was simply a 4:5:6 triad, all notes on together, all notes off
together. so the effect, as far as it relates to any actual direct
comparison of perceived pitches, cannot be tested through jerry0.

peace,
paul

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

/tuning/topicId_36192.html#36192

>
> Therefore, I'm not sure the tuning list is the best place to get a
sampling of who does and who doesn't hear the illusion. What do you
think? I'm curious about Joe's experience with JI performance. Any
singing or string playing, Joe?
> >

***Not really, Jerry! I've been an *ingrained* keyboard player all
my life. Maybe that's why I'm *always* hearing "high thirds..!" :)

jp