Con/dis encore-encore ;-), ;-)It's all in the EARS.

>Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>Subject: RE: Consonance/Dissonance mapping - yet AGAIN!

>Charles Lucy wrote,

>> Intervals of fewer steps of fourths or fifths are more consonant than

>> intervals of abundant steps of fourths or fifths; which are more
dissonant.

>Paul Hahn wrote,

>So a major second is more consonant than either kind (major or minor)
>of third or sixth? Find me someone whose ears confirm that.

Mine.

>Particularly in Lucy's own tuning, the major and minor thirds and sixths are
>extremely consonant, while the major second is very dissonant due to its
>ambiguity between two already difficult ratios, 8:9 and 9:10. Another flaw
>in Lucy's theory is that after enough Lucy fifths (695.493 cents), you will
>get an interval that is closer to a Just fifth, and clearly more consonant
>even though it involves far more steps on the chain of Lucy fifths

The Pauls seem to be muddling their circular logics, by making the
assumption that integer ratios are the ONLY INTERVALS which can be consonnant.
You are both aiming to judge the validity of my proposal by its
proximity to Just Idiocy thinking.

Suspend this logic for a moment, and you may begin to understand what I
am attempting to explain.

1. The perception of consonnance is subjective -
2. Small integer frequency ratios are tuning landmarks, which result in zero
beating between particular cycles.

Thought experiment:
Imagine a fast-flowing stream with stepping stones.
Let the position of the stones be determined by the small integer frequency ratios.
Where is the action?
Where is the turbulance?
Where are the catastophes?
Where is the water tranquil?

Now get into the stream.
Remove the stones.
Listen and ask the same questions.

--
~===============================================================~
Charles Lucy - lucy@harmonics.com (LucyScaleDevelopments)
------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
by setting tuning and harmonic standards for the next millennium,
and having fun with them.

for information on LucyTuning
See http://www.ilhawaii.net/~lucy
or http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/

On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Charles Lucy wrote:
>> So a major second is more consonant than either kind (major or minor)
>> of third or sixth? Find me someone whose ears confirm that.
>
> Mine.

Err--someone else. 8-)>

(I doubt that an analysis of your own LucyTuned[TM] music will bear this
out, BTW.)

> The Pauls seem to be muddling their circular logics, by making the
> assumption that integer ratios are the ONLY INTERVALS which can be consonnant.
> You are both aiming to judge the validity of my proposal by its
> proximity to Just Idiocy thinking.

I am doing no such thing. I made no reference to 5/4s, 5/3s, 6/5s,
8/5s, 9/8s, 10/9s, or any other integer ratios. To me, and I'll bet to
anybody else you care to test, a LucyTuned[TM] Large (2-steps-on-chain-
of-fifths) interval sounds more dissonant than those intervals
associated with three or four steps on the chain of fifths.

[snip a pretty metaphor that has nothing whatsover to do with
psychoacoustical reality]

--pH <manynote@library.wustl.edu> http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
O
/\ "Churchill? Can he run a hundred balls?"
-\-\-- o

[Paul Hahn:]
> [snip a pretty metaphor that has nothing whatsover to do with
psychoacoustical reality]

I would seem to me, that if "psychoacoustical reality" addresses some
'blind necessity,' then "asking the same questions" [Of
tuning/intonation, as opposed to music/art...] would probably yield
some pretty familiar, or similar, "stepping stones..." No?

Dan

On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, D.Stearns wrote:
> From: "D.Stearns" <stearns@capecod.net>
> [Paul Hahn:]
>> [snip a pretty metaphor that has nothing whatsover to do with
> psychoacoustical reality]
>
> I would seem to me, that if "psychoacoustical reality" addresses some
> 'blind necessity,' then "asking the same questions" [Of
> tuning/intonation, as opposed to music/art...] would probably yield
> some pretty familiar, or similar, "stepping stones..." No?

I'm not sure I completely understand, but the implication seems to be
that acknowledging the results of psychoacoustical research would tend
to unnecessarily limit one's mindset. I rather think that Lucy's view
is the more limiting one. What would Lucy's rather simplistic
consonance/dissonance model make, for example, of the work of Bill
Sethares?

--pH <manynote@library.wustl.edu> http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
O
/\ "Churchill? Can he run a hundred balls?"
-\-\-- o

[Paul Hahn:]
> I'm not sure I completely understand, but the implication seems to
be that acknowledging the results of psychoacoustical research would
tend to unnecessarily limit one's mindset.

Though that _may_ indeed occasionally be the case - it wasn't what I
meant... What I meant was that if the results of psychoacoustical
research (specifically 'natural phenomena obeying blind necessity')
are on-the-money, then it would seem to me that these results would
most likely repeat themselves, even if the most up-to-date of these
models (or mindsets) were razed and the same "questions" asked anew.

>I rather think that Lucy's view is the more limiting one.

I agree.

Dan