Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2712

>

Hello David!
well good work then, i really didn't have much of a suggestion. possibly the only way to get more differentiated symbols might be to study gestalt perception maybe, but then you might just end up where you are.

>
> From: "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@bigpond.net.au>
> Subject: Re: 612-tet and 665-tet sagittal notation?
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> > The only thing i would like to throw into the mix here , is that it
> is better to have most differention between symbols as possible to
> make it read easier. The great thing about sharps and flats is that
> don't look anything like each other
> >
>
> Yes. I totally agree. We have tried to maintain that principle as much
> as possible with sagittal. But you would appreciate that when we come
> to notating something as extreme as degrees of 612 or 665-tET where
> there are up to 126 divisions _between_ a sharp and a flat it starts
> to get a little difficult to find symbols which look sufficiently
> different from one another (and from all the other myriad symbols one
> may find on a music staff) and yet which form some kind of orderly
> progression.
>
> We figure that if two symbols are likely to be confused with each
> other they had better be close together in pitch so the result isn't
> too disastrous. e.g. missing an accent mark that represents a schisma
> (about 2 cents) isn't going to bother too many listeners in most contexts.
>
> We are definitely still open to suggestions for improving sagittal. We
> think we've done a reasonable job, although you can't tell this from
> the attempted ASCII representation of the symbols. Looking at the
> actual graphical symbols on Scala's Chromatic Clavier or Staff window
> will give a better idea. Unfortunately Scala doesn't yet have all the
> symbols required to do 612 or 665. Also you'll probably get an error
> message if you try to generate the full 612 or 665-tET in Scala,
> although you can set up a scale with the pitches from from say C to C#
> without any problem.
>
> I'd also like to point out that, although someone may be able to come
> up with a set of symbols that are more differentiated than the
> sagittal ones for any _particular_ tuning, they are unlikely to form
> part of a _universal_ notation system where they have uniform meanings
> across all tunings. We believe we have come up with a system that has
> maximum differentiation for the simpler tunings, with differentiation
> degrading gracefully as tuning complexity increases.
>
> The sagittal system of symbols has something in common with chinese
> characters. Each sagittal symbol is a different combination of a few
> common strokes, where the strokes themselves look as different as
> possible from one another.
>

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