Wiki - wacky?

Thank you for all the unearned attention from the wiki-wiki players.

BTW "wiki-wiki" comes from Hawaiian for "Quick-quick" as far as I can remember.
(None of the HI to English on-line dictionaries are working at present, to verify this though ;-( ).

I am quite happy for anyone to write definitions for LucyTuning, provided they get their facts reasonably correct.

I had a few misgivings about one of the earlier postings:

1. There was a problem with the way the arithmetic was using pi to define the fifth.
In simple terms it is approx 965.5 cents.

2. Although LucyTuning may have a fifth which is close to other tunings e.g. 88 ... or whatever; this is only true for the fifth.
To compare this specific meantone-type tuning to one derived from some other logic, (e.g. single interval size system) is misleading.
Comparisons to close meantones will only remain close for a small number of steps, as more steps are added the tunings will diverge.
The significant point about the size of the LucyTuned fifth is that since it is generated from pi, which is both irrational and transcendental, each new step of fourths or fifths will arrive at a new and unique interval.

3. The ScaleCoding system was first published in a fairly early version of "Pitch, Pi, ....." in the late 1980's. Although still controversial, the system makes perfect sense to me, and works for my ears for LucyTuned music.

Some "rational" people may find it "crackpot", but try it out with LucyTuning for your own ears.

It's also a great way to uniquely define scales;-)

For details see:

http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/lsd/scalemak.html

or put "ScaleCoding" into your favorite search engine.

The correction that I wrote, and continue to stand by was as follows:

'''LucyTuning''' is a form of [[meantone temperament]], in which the fifth is approx, 695.5 [[Cent (music)|cent]]s.
The system was developed from the eighteenth century writings of John 'Longitude' Harrison.

The theory behind LucyTuning suggests that musical harmonics "beat" and that any interval may be mapped by the addition and subtraction of: Large (L) intervals. Ratio = 2^(1/(2*pi)) = 190.9858 cents, and small (s) intervals. Ratio = (2/(2^(1/(2*pi)))^5)^(1/2) = 122.5354 cents.

The harmonic and scale structure is mapped by a unique system of ScaleCoding, which proposes that notes which are closer on the spiral of fourths and fifths are more consonant than those which are separated by more steps along the spiral.

Charles Lucy - lucy@harmonics.com (LucyScaleDevelopments)
------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
for information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.harmonics.com/lucy/
for LucyTuned Lullabies go to http://www.lucytune.com
http://www.lucytune.co.uk or http://www.lullabies.co.uk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:

> 1. There was a problem with the way the arithmetic was using pi to
> define the fifth.
> In simple terms it is approx 965.5 cents.

Sorry, but 600+300/pi is not 965.5 cents.

> 2. Although LucyTuning may have a fifth which is close to other
tunings
> e.g. 88 ... or whatever; this is only true for the fifth.

No, it is *not* only true for the fifth. You can say what you like on
your web page, but kindly keep this sort of nonsense off of
Wikipedia. You should not be editing a page on Lucy tuning at all
since Wikipedia believes in maintaining a "neutral point of view" and
yours is hardly that.

> To compare this specific meantone-type tuning to one derived from
some
> other logic, (e.g. single interval size system) is misleading.

No, what you claim (that there is in any way, shape or form something
unusual or distinct about this particular tuning) is not mere
misleading, but false. If you want to promote a theory like that, be
my guest. But NOT by vandalizing Wikipedia.

> Comparisons to close meantones will only remain close for a small
> number of steps, as more steps are added the tunings will diverge.

Other meantones can be as close as you like to Lucy. This is *very*
*very* elementary math, and if you don't get it, don't mess with what
people write who *do* get it. In fact, 3/10-comma meantone is not
going to diverge noticably from Lucy for any piece anyone is likely
to use it for.

> The significant point about the size of the LucyTuned fifth is that
> since it is generated from pi, which is both irrational and
> transcendental, each new step of fourths or fifths will arrive at a
new
> and unique interval.

The transcendental character of pi is utterly irrelevant, and since
there are more irrational numbers that rational ones, this point is
hardly a major deal. If you take for a generator log2(5)/4, an
irrational (and even transcendental) number, you get 1/4-comma
meantone, which can be considered the paradigm case of a meantone.

> 3. The ScaleCoding system was first published in a fairly early
version
> of "Pitch, Pi, ....." in the late 1980's. Although still
controversial,
> the system makes perfect sense to me, and works for my ears for
> LucyTuned music.

If it is "fairly controversial" then a Wikipedia page should say so,
but the real problem with it is that it doesn't belong on the page at
all, since it is a completely different topic. In any case, the idea
you can judge consonance by counting generator steps is absurd--that
makes the thrids less consonant than the major second.

> Some "rational" people may find it "crackpot", but try it out with
> LucyTuning for your own ears.

This "argument" is bogus. My objection is not to Lucy tuning, but to
your editing of a web page to add nonsense and garbled prose.

> The correction that I wrote, and continue to stand by was as
follows:
>
>
> '''LucyTuning''' is a form of [[meantone temperament]], in which
the
> fifth is approx, 695.5 [[Cent (music)|cent]]s.
> The system was developed from the eighteenth century writings of
John
> 'Longitude' Harrison.
>
> The theory behind LucyTuning suggests that musical harmonics "beat"
and
> that any interval may be mapped by the addition and subtraction of:
> Large (L) intervals. Ratio = 2^(1/(2*pi)) = 190.9858 cents, and
small
> (s) intervals. Ratio = (2/(2^(1/(2*pi)))^5)^(1/2) = 122.5354 cents.

That harmonics beat is a completely different topic. I've put in
something about major tones and diatonic semitones (the correct
terminology) and pointed out that they can be equally well used to
define the tuning as the octave and fifth. Your expressions above are
needlessly complicated, so I've simplifed matters.

> The harmonic and scale structure is mapped by a unique system of
> ScaleCoding, which proposes that notes which are closer on the
spiral
> of fourths and fifths are more consonant than those which are
separated
> by more steps along the spiral.

This is simply babble. You have not defined your terms, you've simply
made big-sounding but meaniningless claims as if you were pitching a
new deoderant on television. Such material belongs in a different
article, if it belongs at all--but the Wikipedia is not the place to
publish orginal research, as they clearly state. The proposed
consonance measure, as I've already pointed out, is preposterous, but
even if it were correct it would not belong on a page about Lucy
tuning.

In any case, I'll say it again--the Wikipedia believes in neutral
point of view. You should not be editing the page at all.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
>
> >
>>1. There was a problem with the way the arithmetic was using pi to >>define the fifth.
>>In simple terms it is approx 965.5 cents.
>> >>
>
>Sorry, but 600+300/pi is not 965.5 cents.
>

I haven't been watching the list too closely, but this
just jumps off the screen. What kind of fifth would
be as big as 965 cents. Wouldn't it be closer to 702 cents?

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
>
> > Comparisons to close meantones will only remain close
> > for a small number of steps, as more steps are added
> > the tunings will diverge.
>
> Other meantones can be as close as you like to Lucy. This
> is *very* *very* elementary math, and if you don't get it,
> don't mess with what people write who *do* get it. In fact,
> 3/10-comma meantone is not going to diverge noticably
> from Lucy for any piece anyone is likely to use it for.

even if the meantone chain is carried out to +/-15
generators, giving a 31-tone system, the differences
between LucyTuning and 3/10-comma meantone are no more
than ~1/7 of a cent:

gen. -------------- ~cents ----------------------
...... LucyTuning .. 3/10-comma MT .. difference

15 .. 832.3944878 .. 832.5467098 ... 0.152221969
14 .. 136.901522 ... 137.0435958 ... 0.142073837
13 .. 641.4085561 .. 641.5404818 ... 0.131925706
12 . 1145.91559 ... 1146.037368 .... 0.121777575
11 .. 450.4226244 .. 450.5342539 ... 0.111629444
10 .. 954.9296586 .. 955.0311399 ... 0.101481312
. 9 .. 259.4366927 .. 259.5280259 ... 0.091333181
. 8 .. 763.9437268 .. 764.0249119 ... 0.08118505
. 7 ... 68.45076099 .. 68.5217979 ... 0.071036919
. 6 .. 572.9577951 .. 573.0186839 ... 0.060888787
. 5 . 1077.464829 .. 1077.51557 ..... 0.050740656
. 4 .. 381.9718634 .. 382.0124559 ... 0.040592525
. 3 .. 886.4788976 .. 886.509342 .... 0.030444394
. 2 .. 190.9859317 .. 191.006228 .... 0.020296262
. 1 .. 695.4929659 .. 695.503114 .... 0.010148131
. 0 .... 0.0 .......... 0.0 ......... 0.0
-1 .. 504.5070341 .. 504.496886 ... -0.010148131
-2 . 1009.014068 .. 1008.993772 ... -0.020296262
-3 .. 313.5211024 .. 313.490658 ... -0.030444394
-4 .. 818.0281366 .. 817.9875441 .. -0.040592525
-5 .. 122.5351707 .. 122.4844301 .. -0.050740656
-6 .. 627.0422049 .. 626.9813161 .. -0.060888787
-7 . 1131.549239 .. 1131.478202 ... -0.071036919
-8 .. 436.0562732 .. 435.9750881 .. -0.08118505
-9 .. 940.5633073 .. 940.4719741 .. -0.091333181
-10 .. 245.0703414 .. 244.9688601 .. -0.101481312
-11 .. 749.5773756 .. 749.4657461 .. -0.111629444
-12 ... 54.08440974 .. 53.96263216 . -0.121777575
-13 .. 558.5914439 .. 558.4595182 .. -0.131925706
-14 . 1063.098478 .. 1062.956404 ... -0.142073837
-15 .. 367.6055122 .. 367.4532902 .. -0.152221969

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
>
> > Comparisons to close meantones will only remain close
> > for a small number of steps, as more steps are added
> > the tunings will diverge.
>
> Other meantones can be as close as you like to Lucy.
> This is *very* *very* elementary math, and if you don't
> get it, don't mess with what people write who *do* get it.
> In fact, 3/10-comma meantone is not going to diverge
> noticably from Lucy for any piece anyone is likely
> to use it for.

even if the meantone chain is carried out to +/-15 generators,
creating a 31-tone tuning, the greatest difference between
3/10-comma meantone and LucyTuning, at the extreme ends of
the chain, is still only ~1/7 of a cent.

gen -------------- ~cents ----------------
..... LucyTuning . 3/10-c MT . difference

15 . 832.3944878 . 832.5467098 . 0.152221969
14 . 136.901522 . 137.0435958 . 0.142073837
13 . 641.4085561 . 641.5404818 . 0.131925706
12 . 1145.91559 . 1146.037368 . 0.121777575
11 . 450.4226244 . 450.5342539 . 0.111629444
10 . 954.9296586 . 955.0311399 . 0.101481312
9 . 259.4366927 . 259.5280259 . 0.091333181
8 . 763.9437268 . 764.0249119 . 0.08118505
7 . 68.45076099 . 68.5217979 . 0.071036919
6 . 572.9577951 . 573.0186839 . 0.060888787
5 . 1077.464829 . 1077.51557 . 0.050740656
4 . 381.9718634 . 382.0124559 . 0.040592525
3 . 886.4788976 . 886.509342 . 0.030444394
2 . 190.9859317 . 191.006228 . 0.020296262
1 . 695.4929659 . 695.503114 . 0.010148131
0 . 000.0000000 . 000.000000 . 0.00000000
-1 . 504.5070341 . 504.496886 . -0.010148131
-2 . 1009.014068 . 1008.993772 . -0.020296262
-3 . 313.5211024 . 313.490658 . -0.030444394
-4 . 818.0281366 . 817.9875441 . -0.040592525
-5 . 122.5351707 . 122.4844301 . -0.050740656
-6 . 627.0422049 . 626.9813161 . -0.060888787
-7 . 1131.549239 . 1131.478202 . -0.071036919
-8 . 436.0562732 . 435.9750881 . -0.08118505
-9 . 940.5633073 . 940.4719741 . -0.091333181
-10 . 245.0703414 . 244.9688601 . -0.101481312
-11 . 749.5773756 . 749.4657461 . -0.111629444
-12 . 54.08440974 . 53.96263216 . -0.121777575
-13 . 558.5914439 . 558.4595182 . -0.131925706
-14 . 1063.098478 . 1062.956404 . -0.142073837
-15 . 367.6055122 . 367.4532902 . -0.152221969

carrying the chain out to the 88th generator results
in a pitch ~3.380995252 higher than the starting pitch.
so in the sense that a LucyTuning this size divides
the "8ve" into 87 almost-equal parts, it resembles 87edo.
but the comparison there is nowhere near as close as
with 3/10-comma meantone.

-monz

Yahoo seems to be acting very weird for me today.
i sent a reply to Charles and Gene with a table
comparing LucyTuning with 3/10-comma meantone, and
it didn't appear for a long time. so i wrote it up
again, adding something else at the end, and when i
sent that, the original one appeared instead!

"wacky" is right! ...

-monz

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

> I think the pot might be just a *little* black in this case . . .

Evidence? What is your point, if any?

> > This is *very*
> > *very* elementary math, and if you don't get it, don't mess with
> what
> > people write who *do* get it.
>
> That sounds like some kind of threat, prefaced by some kind of insult.

A threat of what? What the hell are you talking about, Paul? Talk
about black pots!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
> >
> > > Comparisons to close meantones will only remain close
> > > for a small number of steps, as more steps are added
> > > the tunings will diverge.
> >
> > Other meantones can be as close as you like to Lucy.
> > This is *very* *very* elementary math, and if you don't
> > get it, don't mess with what people write who *do* get it.
> > In fact, 3/10-comma meantone is not going to diverge
> > noticably from Lucy for any piece anyone is likely
> > to use it for.
>
>
> even if the meantone chain is carried out to +/-15 generators,
> creating a 31-tone tuning, the greatest difference between
> 3/10-comma meantone and LucyTuning, at the extreme ends of
> the chain, is still only ~1/7 of a cent.
>
>
> gen -------------- ~cents ----------------
> ..... LucyTuning . 3/10-c MT . difference
>
> 15 . 832.3944878 . 832.5467098 . 0.152221969
> 14 . 136.901522 . 137.0435958 . 0.142073837
> 13 . 641.4085561 . 641.5404818 . 0.131925706
> 12 . 1145.91559 . 1146.037368 . 0.121777575
> 11 . 450.4226244 . 450.5342539 . 0.111629444
> 10 . 954.9296586 . 955.0311399 . 0.101481312
> 9 . 259.4366927 . 259.5280259 . 0.091333181
> 8 . 763.9437268 . 764.0249119 . 0.08118505
> 7 . 68.45076099 . 68.5217979 . 0.071036919
> 6 . 572.9577951 . 573.0186839 . 0.060888787
> 5 . 1077.464829 . 1077.51557 . 0.050740656
> 4 . 381.9718634 . 382.0124559 . 0.040592525
> 3 . 886.4788976 . 886.509342 . 0.030444394
> 2 . 190.9859317 . 191.006228 . 0.020296262
> 1 . 695.4929659 . 695.503114 . 0.010148131
> 0 . 000.0000000 . 000.000000 . 0.00000000
> -1 . 504.5070341 . 504.496886 . -0.010148131
> -2 . 1009.014068 . 1008.993772 . -0.020296262
> -3 . 313.5211024 . 313.490658 . -0.030444394
> -4 . 818.0281366 . 817.9875441 . -0.040592525
> -5 . 122.5351707 . 122.4844301 . -0.050740656
> -6 . 627.0422049 . 626.9813161 . -0.060888787
> -7 . 1131.549239 . 1131.478202 . -0.071036919
> -8 . 436.0562732 . 435.9750881 . -0.08118505
> -9 . 940.5633073 . 940.4719741 . -0.091333181
> -10 . 245.0703414 . 244.9688601 . -0.101481312
> -11 . 749.5773756 . 749.4657461 . -0.111629444
> -12 . 54.08440974 . 53.96263216 . -0.121777575
> -13 . 558.5914439 . 558.4595182 . -0.131925706
> -14 . 1063.098478 . 1062.956404 . -0.142073837
> -15 . 367.6055122 . 367.4532902 . -0.152221969
>
>
> carrying the chain out to the 88th generator results
> in a pitch ~3.380995252 higher than the starting pitch.
> so in the sense that a LucyTuning this size divides
> the "8ve" into 87 almost-equal parts, it resembles 87edo.

That's 88 almost-equal parts, so it resembles 88-equal. It's 50+19+19.

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> >
>>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>>1. There was a problem with the way the arithmetic was using pi >>>> >>>>
>to > >
>>>>define the fifth.
>>>>In simple terms it is approx 965.5 cents.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>Sorry, but 600+300/pi is not 965.5 cents.
>>>
>>> >>>
>>I haven't been watching the list too closely, but this
>>just jumps off the screen. What kind of fifth would
>>be as big as 965 cents. Wouldn't it be closer to 702 cents?
>> >>
>
>Yes, this was obviously an innoncent typo for 695.5, but Gene decided >to rub it in Charles's face.
>

OK, got it.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:

> >Yes, this was obviously an innoncent typo for 695.5, but Gene
decided
> >to rub it in Charles's face.
> >
>
> OK, got it.

What Paul neglected to say was that Charles was claiming he had to
edit the web page and piss all over it because *he* found a typo.
Paul, could you attempt a little objectivity, please?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_52172.html#52194

> Yahoo seems to be acting very weird for me today.
> i sent a reply to Charles and Gene with a table
> comparing LucyTuning with 3/10-comma meantone, and
> it didn't appear for a long time. so i wrote it up
> again, adding something else at the end, and when i
> sent that, the original one appeared instead!
>
> "wacky" is right! ...
>
>
>
> -monz

***There's a notice on their website that they are having virus
problems. The worm has definitely turned...

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_52172.html#52197

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <paul@s...>
wrote:
>
> > I think the pot might be just a *little* black in this case . . .
>
> Evidence? What is your point, if any?
>
> > > This is *very*
> > > *very* elementary math, and if you don't get it, don't mess
with
> > what
> > > people write who *do* get it.
> >
> > That sounds like some kind of threat, prefaced by some kind of
insult.
>
> A threat of what? What the hell are you talking about, Paul? Talk
> about black pots!

***Your friendly moderator suggests cutting down on "potty talk..."

JP

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> Yahoo seems to be acting very weird for me today.

Could be this:

http://groups.yahoo.com/local/service.html

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > even if the meantone chain is carried out to +/-15 generators,
> > creating a 31-tone tuning, the greatest difference between
> > 3/10-comma meantone and LucyTuning, at the extreme ends of
> > the chain, is still only ~1/7 of a cent.
> >
> >
> > <snip table>
> >
> > carrying the chain out to the 88th generator results
> > in a pitch ~3.380995252 higher than the starting pitch.
> > so in the sense that a LucyTuning this size divides
> > the "8ve" into 87 almost-equal parts, it resembles 87edo.
>
> That's 88 almost-equal parts, so it resembles 88-equal.
> It's 50+19+19.

oops, my bad. thanks for that, paul.

with a subset of 88edo for the same +/-15 generator chain,
max error is ~0.5763 (~4/7) cent. so 88edo *is* very close
to LucyTuning.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
>
> > >Yes, this was obviously an innoncent typo for 695.5, but Gene
> decided
> > >to rub it in Charles's face.
> > >
> >
> > OK, got it.
>
> What Paul neglected to say was that Charles was claiming he had to
> edit the web page and piss all over it because *he* found a typo.
> Paul, could you attempt a little objectivity, please?

c'mon guys, *please* park the egos outside the tuning list!
we don't need another flame-war cluttering up the archives.
thanks.

-monz