Tritave equivalence

A while ago several posters on this list insisted that tritave
equivalence can not be percieved, under any circumstance. Do you
really feel that way about this sample?

/tuning/files/tritave.WAV

I had to use the MakeMicroMusic space because this group was running
out of room. And it's 12TET even!

/Ö

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mats Öljare <oljare@h...>
<oljare@h...> wrote:
>
> A while ago several posters on this list insisted that tritave
> equivalence can not be percieved, under any circumstance. Do you
> really feel that way about this sample?
>
> /tuning/files/tritave.WAV
>
> I had to use the MakeMicroMusic space because this group was running
> out of room. And it's 12TET even!
>
> /Ö

i hear a bunch of sounds in succession, each of which is indefinite
in pitch, and to the extent that you can hear pitch in them, they all
seem to have different pitch content than their successors or
predecessors.

an interesting "composition", but i'm not sure what it's trying to
show . . . do you hear a repetition of the same pitch?

> > A while ago several posters on this list insisted that tritave
> > equivalence can not be percieved, under any circumstance. Do you
> > really feel that way about this sample?
> >
> > /tuning/files/tritave.WAV
> >
> > I had to use the MakeMicroMusic space because this group was running
> > out of room. And it's 12TET even!
> >
> > /Ö
>
> i hear a bunch of sounds in succession, each of which is indefinite
> in pitch, and to the extent that you can hear pitch in them, they all
> seem to have different pitch content than their successors or
> predecessors.

Okay so what about this one.

/tuning/files/tritave2.WAV

Can you tell some kind of equivalence going on there?

/Ö

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mats Öljare <oljare@h...>
<oljare@h...> wrote:
>
> > > A while ago several posters on this list insisted that tritave
> > > equivalence can not be percieved, under any circumstance. Do you
> > > really feel that way about this sample?
> > >
> > > /tuning/files/tritave.WAV
> > >
> > > I had to use the MakeMicroMusic space because this group was
running
> > > out of room. And it's 12TET even!
> > >
> > > /Ö
> >
> > i hear a bunch of sounds in succession, each of which is
indefinite
> > in pitch, and to the extent that you can hear pitch in them, they
all
> > seem to have different pitch content than their successors or
> > predecessors.
>
> Okay so what about this one.
>
> /tuning/files/tritave2.WAV
>
> Can you tell some kind of equivalence going on there?

this one sounds to me like

C
C+G
G
D
G
C+G
C
C+G
G
D
G
C+G
C

so i hear some equivalence between C+G and C, as well as between C+G
and G.

> > /tuning/files/tritave2.WAV
> >
> > Can you tell some kind of equivalence going on there?
>
> this one sounds to me like
>
> C
> C+G
> G
> D
> G
> C+G
> C
> C+G
> G
> D
> G
> C+G
> C
>
> so i hear some equivalence between C+G and C, as well as between C+G
> and G.

Well, it's really just three tritaves up and down, with an additive
timbre of harmonics 3 and 9 only. The first example was an
arpeggiation of the 3:5:7 "major" chord.

I'm gonna start working on some more advanced stuff with the OASYS
when a MIDI interface finally arrives. The synthesis is well suited
for this kind of use too, so i'm really hoping to "blow your minds"
with it then...

/Ö

>I'm gonna start working on some more advanced stuff with the
>OASYS when a MIDI interface finally arrives.

Oh my God, that thing sounds good!

-C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning
<alternativetuning@y...>" <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:

> A famous example is in
> Ravel's Bolero, where the melody is doubled by the flute at an
octave
> and a tenth, the same interval as the fifth harmonic.
> It would be
> good to hear that once in JI.

if you mean *adaptive* JI, or something very close to it, then john
delaubenfels may be able to whip up a realization for you quite
readily. hopefully you can get in touch with him these days:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/j/d/jdelaub/jstudio.htm

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/tuning/topicId_41856.html#41865

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mats Öljare <oljare@h...>
> <oljare@h...> wrote:
> >
> > > > A while ago several posters on this list insisted that tritave
> > > > equivalence can not be percieved, under any circumstance. Do
you
> > > > really feel that way about this sample?
> > > >
> > > > /tuning/files/tritave.WAV
> > > >
> > > > I had to use the MakeMicroMusic space because this group was
> running
> > > > out of room. And it's 12TET even!
> > > >
> > > > /Ö
> > >
> > > i hear a bunch of sounds in succession, each of which is
> indefinite
> > > in pitch, and to the extent that you can hear pitch in them,
they
> all
> > > seem to have different pitch content than their successors or
> > > predecessors.
> >
> > Okay so what about this one.
> >
> > /tuning/files/tritave2.WAV
> >
> > Can you tell some kind of equivalence going on there?
>
> this one sounds to me like
>
> C
> C+G
> G
> D
> G
> C+G
> C
> C+G
> G
> D
> G
> C+G
> C
>
> so i hear some equivalence between C+G and C, as well as between
C+G
> and G.

***Why are these done so fast?? Couldn't we hear them better if they
were slower, or is that part of the "deception..."? :)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mats Öljare <oljare@h...>

/tuning/topicId_41856.html#41868

<oljare@h...> wrote:
>
> > > /tuning/files/tritave2.WAV
> > >
> > > Can you tell some kind of equivalence going on there?
> >
> > this one sounds to me like
> >
> > C
> > C+G
> > G
> > D
> > G
> > C+G
> > C
> > C+G
> > G
> > D
> > G
> > C+G
> > C
> >
> > so i hear some equivalence between C+G and C, as well as between
C+G
> > and G.
>
> Well, it's really just three tritaves up and down, with an additive
> timbre of harmonics 3 and 9 only. The first example was an
> arpeggiation of the 3:5:7 "major" chord.
>
> I'm gonna start working on some more advanced stuff with the OASYS
> when a MIDI interface finally arrives. The synthesis is well suited
> for this kind of use too, so i'm really hoping to "blow your minds"
> with it then...
>
> /Ö

***Dumbo has forgotten what the "tritave" is... Is it the 3:1??

Thanks!

J. Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> ***Dumbo has forgotten what the "tritave" is... Is it the 3:1??

Dumbo may have forgotten, but you remembered correctly ;)

Graham

> ***Why are these done so fast?? Couldn't we hear them better if they
> were slower, or is that part of the "deception..."? :)

Okay so what about these?

/tuning/files/tritave3.WAV
/tuning/files/tritave4.WAV

Both examples are of the 1,3,9 additive timbre and the pitches are 12TET.

> J. Pehrson

/Ö

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_41856.html#41892

> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> > ***Dumbo has forgotten what the "tritave" is... Is it the 3:1??
>
> Dumbo may have forgotten, but you remembered correctly ;)
>
>
> Graham

***Thanks, Graham!

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_41856.html#41892

> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> > ***Dumbo has forgotten what the "tritave" is... Is it the 3:1??
>
> Dumbo may have forgotten, but you remembered correctly ;)
>
>
> Graham

***Thanks, Graham!

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mats Öljare <oljare@h...>

/tuning/topicId_41856.html#41893

<oljare@h...> wrote:
>
> > ***Why are these done so fast?? Couldn't we hear them better if
they
> > were slower, or is that part of the "deception..."? :)
>
> Okay so what about these?
>
> /tuning/files/tritave3.WAV
> /tuning/files/tritave4.WAV
>
> Both examples are of the 1,3,9 additive timbre and the pitches are
12TET.
>
> > J. Pehrson
>
> /Ö

***Thanks, Mats!

Well, I don't quite understand why these are presented as a kind
of "trill..." (I hope it isn't some kind of "cover up"... :)

J. Pehrson

> > Okay so what about these?
> >
> > /tuning/files/tritave3.WAV
> > /tuning/files/tritave4.WAV
> >
> > Both examples are of the 1,3,9 additive timbre and the pitches are
> 12TET.
> >
> > > J. Pehrson
> >
> > /Ö
>
>
> ***Thanks, Mats!
>
> Well, I don't quite understand why these are presented as a kind
> of "trill..." (I hope it isn't some kind of "cover up"... :)

So here's one final sample.

/tuning/files/tritave5.WAV

Any of them sound convincing?

/Ö

>So here's one final sample.
>
>/tuning/files/tritave5.WAV
>
>Any of them sound convincing?

Convincing how? That the pattern is being repeated at a 2:1?
Not to me.

That it sounds like the same pattern is being repeated?
Yes.

Any more than it would with digital additive timbres with full
harmonic content?
I doubt it.

-Carl