Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2619

tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are 14 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> 2. Re: Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
> 3. Re: a rational decision
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> 4. Re: Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> 5. Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> 6. Invention of Blackjack
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> 7. 768edo de facto tuning standard
> From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
> 8. Re: Invention of Blackjack
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> 9. Re: Invention of Blackjack
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> 10. Re: 768edo de facto tuning standard
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> 11. Re: 768edo de facto tuning standard
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> 12. Re: 768edo de facto tuning standard
> From: "Paul Erlich" <perlich@aya.yale.edu>
> 13. Re: Invention of Blackjack
> From: "Paul Erlich" <perlich@aya.yale.edu>
> 14. Re: 768edo de facto tuning standard
> From: "Paul Erlich" <perlich@aya.yale.edu>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:00:35 -0700
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 3:35 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
> > <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > CSound uses "pch", resolution to one cent, or "oct", resolution to
> > 1.2
> > > cent, or "cps" in frequency. The examples from Bill Alves show six
> > > decimal places after the point and also ratios expressed in decimal
> > > format to six places.
> >
> > "Pch" and "oct" are merely for convenience, "cps" is the basic Csound
> > system. A typical C language float is about six significant digits
> > with an exponent of about 10^(+-38), and this may be what Csound is
> > using. A double would probably be overkill.
>
> but don't forget ... what you finally hear is
> totally dependent upon the resolution of your
> hardware, which, if you're using Csound to drive
> your computer's soundcard, seems to be pretty much
> 768edo.
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:44:16 -0700
> From: Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>
> Subject: Re: Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
>
> >but don't forget ... what you finally hear is
> >totally dependent upon the resolution of your
> >hardware, which, if you're using Csound to drive
> >your computer's soundcard, seems to be pretty
> >much 768edo.
>
> Csound is typically used to render to wave, monz.
>
> -Carl
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 03:54:30 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Re: a rational decision
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_45243.html#45244
>
> > In a message dated 7/2/03 10:46:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jpehrson@r...
> > writes:
> >
> >
> > > I decided that the _Blacklight_ description should mention
> Blackjack
> > > as a 21-note *NEAR* Just Intonation scale...
> > >
> > > A rational decision, yes??
> > >
> > > J. Pehrson
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, Joe. I could not in good conscience call Blackjack a "just
> intonation
> > scale" and we should be able to agree on program notes. No?
> >
> > best, Johnny
>
> ***That makes sense, Johnny... Sorry I haven't gotten back to you via
> phone. I was away for the long weekend and am still catching up with
> things...
>
> best,
>
> Joseph
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 20:54:00 -0700
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
>
> > From: "Carl Lumma" <ekin@lumma.org>
> > To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 8:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
> >
> >
> > > but don't forget ... what you finally hear is
> > > totally dependent upon the resolution of your
> > > hardware, which, if you're using Csound to drive
> > > your computer's soundcard, seems to be pretty
> > > much 768edo.
> >
> > Csound is typically used to render to wave, monz.
>
> ah, yes ... i haven't played around with it for
> years, and forgot about that.
>
> so ... never mind what i said.
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:18:40 -0000
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> Subject: Re: MTS (was: Fwd: [tuning-math] Mu explained)
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > but don't forget ... what you finally hear is
> > totally dependent upon the resolution of your
> > hardware, which, if you're using Csound to drive
> > your computer's soundcard, seems to be pretty much
> > 768edo.
>
> Csound is not used to drive soundcards.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 04:53:10 -0000
> From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: Invention of Blackjack
>
> Inspired by Dave Keenan's recent postings, I went back in the archive
> and was astonished to see some things about the invention of
> Blackjack. For one thing, the item of the small step sizes was
> discussed from the get-go! And the whole notion of *harmonic* vs.
> *melodic* usage.
>
> I found the following posts:
>
> /tuning/topicId_21894.html#21894
>
> Which was Dave Keenan's *Miracle* scale of 31 out of 72,
>
> /tuning/topicId_21894.html#21903
>
> Apparently the actual *invention* of Blackjack with the proposal of
> Paul Erlich to use 21 notes!
>
> AND,
>
> /tuning/topicId_21957.html#21957
>
> The use of the term "Blackjack" first by DAVE KEENAN, in a rather
> casual way. I believe this is the first use of this term on the
> list. (I think Monz has that Paul Erlich coined the term... I
> believe Paul coined the MIRACLE acronym...)
>
> Exciting posts. I remember it all happened around April-May 2003 and
> there were so many posts about these things that people started
> complaining and the lists split off... :)
>
> I was also rather surprised in my *own* involvement in all of this.
> Although I wasn't doing much of the "heavy lifting" I was certainly
> posing lots of the questions... so it appears...
>
> J. Pehrson
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 21:56:37 -0700
> From: Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
> Subject: 768edo de facto tuning standard
>
> >
> > From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> > Subject: 768edo de facto tuning standard?
> >
> > hello all,
> >
> >
> >
> > whichever method of defining "mus" is finally accepted
> > by the general tuning community, i propose recognizing
> > 768edo as the _de facto_ hardware tuning standard.
> >
> > any objections?
>
> 768 IS UNUSABLE, HORRIBLE, AND SOUND LIKE CRAP
> I wouldn't use it to to wipe with. you can't even tune a pythagorean pentatonic with it and it
> beat to the point of making anything you hear divorced from what you want to hear.
>
> >
> >
> > also, does anyone have any info on the true tuning
> > resolution of computer soundcards, by brand and model, etc.?
> >
> > -monz
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 22:25:45 -0700
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: Invention of Blackjack
>
> hi Joe,
>
> > From: "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> > To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:53 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] Invention of Blackjack
> >
> >
> > Exciting posts. I remember it all happened
> > around April-May 2003 and there were so many
> > posts about these things that people started
> > complaining and the lists split off... :)
>
> for those keeping track, Joe made a slip here
> and meant April-May 2001.
>
> Joe, thanks for summarizing the early history
> of MIRACLE. i'll try to get around to updating
> those webpages with your info.
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:20:28 -0000
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> Subject: Re: Invention of Blackjack
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > Exciting posts. I remember it all happened around April-May 2003
> and
> > there were so many posts about these things that people started
> > complaining and the lists split off... :)
>
> Then I showed up and people complained even more. :)
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:22:23 -0000
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
> Subject: Re: 768edo de facto tuning standard
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> > 768 IS UNUSABLE, HORRIBLE, AND SOUND LIKE CRAP
>
> It's possible to hear the difference between it and JI, but that
> difference is not large.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:42:05 -0700
> From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: 768edo de facto tuning standard
>
> hi Kraig,
>
> > From: "Kraig Grady" <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>
> > To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:56 PM
> > Subject: [tuning] 768edo de facto tuning standard
> >
> >
> > >
> > > From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
> > > Subject: 768edo de facto tuning standard?
> > >
> > > hello all,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > whichever method of defining "mus" is finally accepted
> > > by the general tuning community, i propose recognizing
> > > 768edo as the _de facto_ hardware tuning standard.
> > >
> > > any objections?
> >
> > 768 IS UNUSABLE, HORRIBLE, AND SOUND LIKE CRAP
> > I wouldn't use it to to wipe with. you can't even tune
> > a pythagorean pentatonic with it
>
> umm ...
>
> -- Pythagorean -- ---- 768edo ----
> note 3^x cents degree cents cents deviation
>
> A 3 905.8650026 580 906.25 0.384997404
> G 1 701.9550009 449 701.5625 -0.392500865
> E 4 407.8200035 261 407.8125 -0.007503462
> D 2 203.9100017 131 204.6875 0.777498269
> C 0 0 0 0 0
>
> looks pretty darn good to me!
>
> *total* error of only 1 & 9/16 cents.
>
> average error 5/16 of a cent.
>
> and look at that nice "major-3rd"! i defy
> anyone to hear the difference between 2^(261/768)
> and 81:64. it's only about 1/133 of a cent.
>
> if you played any "pythagorean pentatonic" music
> with this 768edo subset, i'm pretty sure that
> even hardcore Pythagoreans would love it.
> is Margo around?
>
> -monz
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 07:46:54 -0000
> From: "Paul Erlich" <perlich@aya.yale.edu>
> Subject: Re: 768edo de facto tuning standard
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > hi Kraig,
> >
> >
> > > From: "Kraig Grady" <kraiggrady@a...>
> [...]
> > > 768 IS UNUSABLE, HORRIBLE, AND SOUND LIKE CRAP
> > > I wouldn't use it to to wipe with. you can't even tune
> > > a pythagorean pentatonic with it
> >
> >
> > umm ...
> >
> >
> > -- Pythagorean -- ---- 768edo ----
> > note 3^x cents degree cents cents deviation
> >
> > A 3 905.8650026 580 906.25 0.384997404
> > G 1 701.9550009 449 701.5625 -0.392500865
> > E 4 407.8200035 261 407.8125 -0.007503462
> > D 2 203.9100017 131 204.6875 0.777498269
> > C 0 0 0 0 0
> >
> >
> > looks pretty darn good to me!
> >
> > *total* error of only 1 & 9/16 cents.

NOTICE YOU ARE ONE UNIT OFF 131 262 I TRIED TO USE IT FOR THE EIKOSANY AND SOME SIMPLE 11TH LIMIT
STUFF. IT BEATS UNRELATED TO THE RATIOS. YOU CAN TAKE YOUR NUMBERS AND SHOVE IT CAUSE IT BEATS
LIKE CRAZY AND DON'T USE YOU DAMN CALULATOR IT ONLY PROVES THAT EVERYTHING YOU ALL HAVE BEEN
SAYING ALL THESE YEARS IS NONSENSE BECAUSE YOU DON'T LISTEN. THIS IS WHY I WILL NOT WASTE MY TIME
WITH THESE "DEVICES"

>
> >
> > average error 5/16 of a cent.
>
> monz, i don't like the way you calculate errors.
>
> look at the four perfect fifths in your scale and tell me what you
> see.
>
> > and look at that nice "major-3rd"! i defy
> > anyone to hear the difference between 2^(261/768)
> > and 81:64. it's only about 1/133 of a cent.
>
> 81:64 doesn't matter. if all four fifths sound good, the 81;64 they
> form will be fine whatever it is -- you certainly can't hear the
> *beating* between the 81st harmonic of one note and the 64th of the
> other!
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2619

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>