update to my Ramos page

for those who are interested in Ramos's 5-limit tuning
but continue to be mystified, i've added an illustration
of his tuning in regular musical staff-notation using
my HEWM convention:

http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/ramos/ramos.htm

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> for those who are interested in Ramos's 5-limit tuning
> but continue to be mystified, i've added an illustration
> of his tuning in regular musical staff-notation using
> my HEWM convention:
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/ramos/ramos.htm
>
>
>
> -monz

now i'm much more confused than before. your new lattice diagram and
musically notated scale don't appear to agree with one another, let
alone with the set of pitches described in the periodicity block page
linked from this one.

hi paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/ramos/ramos.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
>
> now i'm much more confused than before. your new lattice
> diagram and musically notated scale don't appear to agree
> with one another, let alone with the set of pitches described
> in the periodicity block page linked from this one.

huh? the lattices and notation all agree.
where's the problem?

Ramos called 1/1 "A". the description of monochord division
given in the Ramos webpage link above only gives the usual
16-note medieval gamut: a 5-limit "A-natural-minor" scale
in two 8ves, with one Bb added.

the lattice and musical notation at the bottom of this
Ramos page give exactly that scale.

the other "Ramos's tuning as a periodicity-block" page
http://sonic-arts.org/td/erlich/ramospblock.htm

gives the full 12-tone 5-limit chromatic scale, which includes
4 notes added by Ramos to his original 8-note structure.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi paul,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/ramos/ramos.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -monz
> >
> > now i'm much more confused than before. your new lattice
> > diagram and musically notated scale don't appear to agree
> > with one another, let alone with the set of pitches described
> > in the periodicity block page linked from this one.
>
>
> huh? the lattices and notation all agree.
> where's the problem?

for one think, it appears that the note "p" extends further along the
5-axis than any other note. i guess that isn't what you meant, but
it's very misleading right now.

> Ramos called 1/1 "A". the description of monochord division
> given in the Ramos webpage link above only gives the usual
> 16-note medieval gamut: a 5-limit "A-natural-minor" scale
> in two 8ves, with one Bb added.
>
> the lattice and musical notation at the bottom of this
> Ramos page give exactly that scale.

ok, but it's transposed relative to the lattice above, isn't it? with
all the powers of 5 being either 0 or -1, i would expect to see some
notes with a "-", and none with a "+", in the hewm notation . . .

> the other "Ramos's tuning as a periodicity-block" page
> http://sonic-arts.org/td/erlich/ramospblock.htm
>
>
> gives the full 12-tone 5-limit chromatic scale, which includes
> 4 notes added by Ramos to his original 8-note structure.

it might be worth noting this more explicitly on the pages . . .

hi paul,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > hi paul,
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > > > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/ramos/ramos.htm
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -monz
> > >
> > > now i'm much more confused than before. your new lattice
> > > diagram and musically notated scale don't appear to agree
> > > with one another, let alone with the set of pitches described
> > > in the periodicity block page linked from this one.
> >
> >
> > huh? the lattices and notation all agree.
> > where's the problem?
>
> for one think, it appears that the note "p" extends further
> along the 5-axis than any other note. i guess that isn't what
> you meant, but it's very misleading right now.

oh, i see ... yes, i see how that could be confusing.

this lattice doesn't quite ignore the 8ves, as mine usually
do. here, Ramos specified each note with an individual
letter, and so i had to show the 8ves on the lattice in
order to represent his entire gamut.

rather than make it 3-dimensional, i just stacked the 8ves
vertically, and used bold black lines to separate the exponents
of 5. i suppose now i can use my software to make a much
better 3-D version,

> > Ramos called 1/1 "A". the description of monochord division
> > given in the Ramos webpage link above only gives the usual
> > 16-note medieval gamut: a 5-limit "A-natural-minor" scale
> > in two 8ves, with one Bb added.
> >
> > the lattice and musical notation at the bottom of this
> > Ramos page give exactly that scale.
>
> ok, but it's transposed relative to the lattice above,
> isn't it? with all the powers of 5 being either 0 or -1,
> i would expect to see some notes with a "-", and none
> with a "+", in the hewm notation . . .

no, the lattices on my two pages agree with each other.
nothing is transposed.

i think you just made a memory slip here ...
notes in the 5^-1 row of the lattice all need a "+",
because they're a comma higher than those in the Pythagorean
row. conversely, notes in the 5^1 row need a "-" (minus
sign) because they are a comma lower than the Pythagorean ones.

i know that it's a bit confusing that 5^-1 gets a "+"
and 5^+1 gets a "-" ... but i think you can see the logic
in what i did.

> > the other "Ramos's tuning as a periodicity-block" page
> > http://sonic-arts.org/td/erlich/ramospblock.htm
> >
> >
> > gives the full 12-tone 5-limit chromatic scale, which includes
> > 4 notes added by Ramos to his original 8-note structure.
>
> it might be worth noting this more explicitly on the pages . . .

yeah, i really should say something about that. thanks.

-monz