Re: [MMM] Looking for tuning application

The Edit dialog in Scala might come close to what you
want although it's not based on midi notes.
If you do

equal 12
extend 128
set freq 8 (or thereabout)
set attribute factor 8 (same value as above)
Ctrl-E
Then tick all three checkboxes.
Then you can change the pitches one by one,
entering them in cents or Hertz.

Let me know if you have an idea to make it easier.

Manuel

on 12/29/03 3:27 AM, Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>
wrote:

>
> The Edit dialog in Scala might come close to what you
> want although it's not based on midi notes.
> If you do
>
> equal 12
> extend 128
> set freq 8 (or thereabout)
> set attribute factor 8 (same value as above)
> Ctrl-E
> Then tick all three checkboxes.
> Then you can change the pitches one by one,
> entering them in cents or Hertz.
>
> Let me know if you have an idea to make it easier.
>
> Manuel

You could make it easier by implementing control messages or sysex messages
(from the midi *input*) that would change the pitches individually.

I haven't used scala to speak of yet, but if you had a way of creating a
scale with an arbitrary generator structure, such that for example a 12-tone
scale might have anything from a single generator to 12 generators, and the
generator sizes can be set by midi messages, then you have the ultimate
flexibility for midi-controlled scale tweaking.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> I haven't used scala to speak of yet, but if you had a way of creating a
> scale with an arbitrary generator structure, such that for example a 12-tone
> scale might have anything from a single generator to 12 generators, and the
> generator sizes can be set by midi messages, then you have the ultimate
> flexibility for midi-controlled scale tweaking.

Sorry, Kurt, this is all missing the point of what I was looking for. I've answered Manuel directly over at MMM.

Cheers,
Jon

on 1/1/04 7:10 PM, Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>> I haven't used scala to speak of yet, but if you had a way of creating a
>> scale with an arbitrary generator structure, such that for example a 12-tone
>> scale might have anything from a single generator to 12 generators, and the
>> generator sizes can be set by midi messages, then you have the ultimate
>> flexibility for midi-controlled scale tweaking.
>
> Sorry, Kurt, this is all missing the point of what I was looking for.

What you want and what I want might have a lot in common in the
implementation (within scala for example).

> I've answered Manuel directly over at MMM.

Ok, so I read what you wrote at MMM. Since I don't know why this topic
doesn't belong here, and I have an email-based subscription here but not at
MMM, I'm taking the liberty of continuing the thread.

The main difference I see between what you are asking for and what I became
interested in based on your inspiration is that you want to be identify the
note to retune by playing it, so that you can use a single knob/slider to do
the work. Thus also allows you to retune all 128 midi pitches rather than
being stuck in an octave model. This is a step in the opposite direction
from the "generator" approach I was describing. However, all these
variations still have much in common as far as what goes on in terms of MIDI
filtering (relaying). If that capability were implemented in scala or some
other program it could conceivably come in various flavors:

(1) per midi-note - 128 total
(2) per midi-note within octave
(3) broken down by generators

Flavor (1) would to be practical require the single-knob approach.
Flavor (2) could be either single or multi-knob.
Flavor (3) would be most practical with a knob per generator.

I'll be interested to hear Manuel's response to these ideas.

-Kurt

>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Kurt,

I'll try to be direct on this:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> you want to be identify the note to retune by playing it, so
> that you can use a single knob/slider to do the work.

No, not really. I only thought of one GUI control once you select a midi note to make it easier. It would be great to have a scrolling kbd on the screen, playable by an external kbd, with a pitch control for each virtual key. But the main point is:

128 pitches, and I can tune 'em in real time however I want.

> (1) per midi-note - 128 total

What I want.

> (2) per midi-note within octave
> (3) broken down by generators

Neither of interest to me. If I want to tune 12 notes, replicated at the octave, I still have my Prophet V, and it works just fine.

> I'll be interested to hear Manuel's response to these ideas.

As I mentioned to Manuel, Scala already does so much I don't expect him to chase individual requests like this. And as I mentioned in general, people have done some amazing work on both freeware and shareware soft instruments, in terms of UI, that if it doesn't exist (and it doesn't appear to be the case), I bet I can make it happen!

Cheers,
Jon

[Jon; MMM]
> I don't even need/want this to work with external synths, driving
> the soundcard would be fine.

The soundcard is an external synth as far as Scala is concerned.

[Kurt]
>If that capability were implemented in scala or some
>other program it could conceivably come in various flavors:
>
>(1) per midi-note - 128 total
>(2) per midi-note within octave
>(3) broken down by generators
>
>Flavor (1) would to be practical require the single-knob approach.
>Flavor (2) could be either single or multi-knob.
>Flavor (3) would be most practical with a knob per generator.
>
>I'll be interested to hear Manuel's response to these ideas.

Flavor 3 is not the most practical. All flavors require dynamic
128-note retuning via continuous controller, but Flavor 3 requires
the additional notion of a generator-based scale object, which
Scala doesn't currently have. It has a command to calculate
a fixed scale object from a chain of generators, but that is very
different.

-Carl

on 1/2/04 1:12 AM, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

> [Jon; MMM]
>> I don't even need/want this to work with external synths, driving
>> the soundcard would be fine.
>
> The soundcard is an external synth as far as Scala is concerned.
>
> [Kurt]
>> If that capability were implemented in scala or some
>> other program it could conceivably come in various flavors:
>>
>> (1) per midi-note - 128 total
>> (2) per midi-note within octave
>> (3) broken down by generators
>>
>> Flavor (1) would to be practical require the single-knob approach.
>> Flavor (2) could be either single or multi-knob.
>> Flavor (3) would be most practical with a knob per generator.
>>
>> I'll be interested to hear Manuel's response to these ideas.
>
> Flavor 3 is not the most practical. All flavors require dynamic
> 128-note retuning via continuous controller, but Flavor 3 requires
> the additional notion of a generator-based scale object, which
> Scala doesn't currently have. It has a command to calculate
> a fixed scale object from a chain of generators, but that is very
> different.
>
> -Carl

That's what I was afraid of. I could imagine that the structure of scala
might incorporate such a notion if calculations could be partly symbolic
rather than always fully numeric, or if something like a script could be run
to recalculate a scale when a generator changes.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> [Jon; MMM]
> > I don't even need/want this to work with external synths, driving
> > the soundcard would be fine.
>
> The soundcard is an external synth as far as Scala is concerned.

As I've mentioned, I'm not speaking of Scala - I'm talking about the sound that comes out of the sound card, just as when you use a soft synth.

Cheers,
Jon

Carl (2nd Jan):
>>Flavor 3 is not the most practical. All flavors require dynamic
>>128-note retuning via continuous controller, but Flavor 3 requires
>>the additional notion of a generator-based scale object, which
>>Scala doesn't currently have. It has a command to calculate
>>a fixed scale object from a chain of generators, but that is very
>>different.

Kurt:
> That's what I was afraid of. I could imagine that the structure of scala
> might incorporate such a notion if calculations could be partly symbolic
> rather than always fully numeric, or if something like a script could be run
> to recalculate a scale when a generator changes.

It needn't be that complicated. All you need is to interpolate between a number of static tunings. Set one of these for when all generators are 0, and another for when each generator is at its maximum extent. At least, that works for a single generator, and something like it would for more. I've played with this in Kyma, and it's good for experimenting, so you can find your preferred generator size by ear.

Robert Walker was doing something similar for Fractal Tune Smithy, but I don't know where it ended up. At least, you can control the fifth size for meantone tunings.

Okay, let's think. With two generators, x and y, we define the scale s(0,0) when they're both zero. Then have s(1,0) and s(0,1) for the two orthogonal extremes. So you can get s(x,0) = s(0,0)*(1-x) + s(1,0)*x and s(0,y) = s(0,0)*(1-y) + s(0,1)*y. In general, say s(x,y) = s(0,0) + [s(1,0) - s(0,0)]*x + [s(0,1) - s(0,0)]*y. Yes, I think that works! And it should generalize for any number of generators.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> It needn't be that complicated.

Yeah, right. I have an idea: why don't you guys start a new thread, since this no longer bears *any* relation to my original question? That would be great...

Cheers,
Jon

>> It needn't be that complicated.
>
>Yeah, right. I have an idea: why don't you guys start a new thread,
>since this no longer bears *any* relation to my original question?
>That would be great...
>
>Cheers,
>Jon

Get up on the wrong side of bed again, Jon?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Get up on the wrong side of bed again, Jon?

Didn't mean for it to come off grumpy, but maybe it did. Anyhoo, if the entire thrust of the original question is long gone, and it looks like an in-depth discussion of a completely different area is being gotten into, then it would serve *everyone* well if a new subject heading were started, and things could go from there.

Besides, who said I've gotten out of bed yet? :)

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:

> It needn't be that complicated. All you need is to interpolate
between
> a number of static tunings. Set one of these for when all
generators
> are 0, and another for when each generator is at its maximum
extent. At
> least, that works for a single generator, and something like it
would
> for more. I've played with this in Kyma, and it's good for
> experimenting, so you can find your preferred generator size by ear.

Hey, someone who has actually used adaptive tempering!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Yuck, yuck yuck, yuck yuck. Jon, you have my sympathies, though you
> probably won't be reading this unless by some miracle you haven't
> already left in disgust.

One of my New Year's Resolutions was to stop quitting the tuning list everytime I got disgusted. I'll just try being quiet for a change! :)

Cheers,
Jon (who really *doesn't* have NY Resolutions... and still wants a simple, per-note-live-tuning app to play with...)

>> I was sick when the new moderators made their ascent. Somehow, we
>now
>> have censorship on this list, and those doing the censorship
>> are . . . leading by example? NOT!
>
>Somehow, this is offensive bullshit. Would you care to explain how
>this list is more censored than tuning-math or harmonic entropy?

For the record, I have not censored anything but adverts; I placed
"buggerzion" on moderator status, but he has not posted since.

Meanwhile, I've taken this thread to metatuning.

-Carl

Could you guys take [tuning] out of the header so our mailfilters
direct it to the correct folder?

And...chill out eh?

--
* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

>Could you guys take [tuning] out of the header so our mailfilters
>direct it to the correct folder?

Indeed, when I replied I thought it was to MMM!

-Carl