The Forms of Tonality now Online!

All;

Paul Erlich's fantastic paper, *The Forms of Tonality*, is
now available on the web...

http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

Getting it down to 400K is an achievement, I'm sure you'll
agree, Paul. Strongly recommend Acrobat 6 to view it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_46697.html#46697

> All;
>
> Paul Erlich's fantastic paper, *The Forms of Tonality*, is
> now available on the web...
>
> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/
>
> Getting it down to 400K is an achievement, I'm sure you'll
> agree, Paul. Strongly recommend Acrobat 6 to view it.
>
> -Carl

***Great work, Carl... Congrats! A valuable resource. I look at my
hard copy all the time...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> All;
>
> Paul Erlich's fantastic paper, *The Forms of Tonality*, is
> now available on the web...
>
> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/
>
> Getting it down to 400K is an achievement, I'm sure you'll
> agree, Paul. Strongly recommend Acrobat 6 to view it.

I wouldn't recommend Acrobat 5 to view anything (I have my computer
set up so that pdf files are viewed in Ghostview.) Is Acrobat 6 a big
improvement?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> All;
>
> Paul Erlich's fantastic paper, *The Forms of Tonality*, is
> now available on the web...
>
> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/
>
> Getting it down to 400K is an achievement, I'm sure you'll
> agree, Paul. Strongly recommend Acrobat 6 to view it.
>
> -Carl

thanks for doing this, carl! unfortunately,

() i need to correct the typos that i was correcting by hand on the
physical distribution of this paper. totally my fault.

() the figures look bad on the screen because 1 pixel is no longer 1
pixel, and resizing to 100% or anything else doesn't alleviate this.
don't know if anyone knows how to get these to look better in acrobat.

thanks again!

>> Paul Erlich's fantastic paper, *The Forms of Tonality*, is
>> now available on the web...
>>
>> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/
>>
>> Getting it down to 400K is an achievement, I'm sure you'll
>> agree, Paul. Strongly recommend Acrobat 6 to view it.
>
>I wouldn't recommend Acrobat 5 to view anything (I have my computer
>set up so that pdf files are viewed in Ghostview.) Is Acrobat 6 a
>big improvement?

It manages to hold on to the bloatware-of-the-century Award, but
I'm coming to like it all the same. I use Ghostview for ps, but
for pdf I like the subpixel rendering and neato options such as
bookmarks, hyperlinks, etc., etc. of Acrobat.

6 is a lot easier to use than 5, and has support for jpeg2000
and jbig, which means pdf might now be competitive with djvu.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> but
> for pdf I like the subpixel rendering

what does this mean and why do the figures look so bad in spite of
it? reply on the metatuning list, please, as this is now off-topic.

>() i need to correct the typos that i was correcting by hand on the
>physical distribution of this paper. totally my fault.

I already switched all instances of 'on the cover' with 'figure 6',
which ironically was already done in my print copy!

Sorry to say, Paul, that I don't think I'll have time to do this
again anytime soon.

>() the figures look bad on the screen because 1 pixel is no longer 1
>pixel, and resizing to 100% or anything else doesn't alleviate this.
>don't know if anyone knows how to get these to look better in acrobat.

They shouldn't. They're losslessly encoded at their native
resolutions. 100% is the only size you should be viewing them
at, obviously, or you'll get aliasing. Anyway, they look
fantastic on my end!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >() i need to correct the typos that i was correcting by hand on
the
> >physical distribution of this paper. totally my fault.
>
> I already switched all instances of 'on the cover' with 'figure 6',
> which ironically was already done in my print copy!
>
> Sorry to say, Paul, that I don't think I'll have time to do this
> again anytime soon.

so we have to live with the typos online that i corrected by hand in
every single physical copy of the paper i sent out? that's too bad --
maybe you should just take it down until you do have the time.

> >() the figures look bad on the screen because 1 pixel is no longer
1
> >pixel, and resizing to 100% or anything else doesn't alleviate
this.
> >don't know if anyone knows how to get these to look better in
acrobat.
>
> They shouldn't. They're losslessly encoded at their native
> resolutions. 100% is the only size you should be viewing them
> at, obviously, or you'll get aliasing. Anyway, they look
> fantastic on my end!

again, they look terrible to me, even at 100%.

>so we have to live with the typos online that i corrected by hand in
>every single physical copy of the paper i sent out? that's too bad --
>maybe you should just take it down until you do have the time.

How serious are these typos? Can you send me a list of them?

Don't give me the "that's too bad". It's too bad I spent the
better part of a day working from a defective version of the paper.

>again, they look terrible to me, even at 100%.

Well, if you've read everything I've written on this issue and tried
everything implied there to address your problem, why don't you send
me a real bug report with the configuration your using to view the
bmps, and the configuration your using to view the pdf?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >so we have to live with the typos online that i corrected by hand
in
> >every single physical copy of the paper i sent out? that's too
bad --
> >maybe you should just take it down until you do have the time.
>
> How serious are these typos? Can you send me a list of them?
>
> Don't give me the "that's too bad". It's too bad I spent the
> better part of a day working from a defective version of the paper.

may i then repeat what i wrote in

/tuning/topicId_46697.html#46705

on this issue -- "totally my fault"!

i guess you don't have the physical paper with you? the errors are
(in thetext.doc):

page 4 paragraph 3 -- "triads" should be "tetrads".

page 9 paragraph 3 == ", which are typically associated in JI theory
with the major and minor modes, respectively" should be deleted.

> >again, they look terrible to me, even at 100%.
>
> Well, if you've read everything I've written on this issue and tried
> everything implied there to address your problem,

i must have missed something. what did you imply? it seemed you were
just denying my report that i did view the figures at 100%.

please reply off-list, this is just a conversation between the two of
us, and an uncomfortable one at that. rest assured that i know your
intentions are 100% good, and i give you my humblest thanks and
deepest apologies, but something's not coming across right now.

> http://lumma.org/tuning/erlich/

This is awesome! Thanks Paul and Carl for making it available to everyone.