The features of perceptibly just intonation

(was: Re: Microtonal meeting in France)

Kurt Bigler wrote:
> on 7/22/05 1:54 PM, wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@...> wrote:
> >> Tell me, if you can and will ... can a meantone temperament be
> >> perceptibly just?
> >
> > I would say no, because the errors involved, typically 5 or 6 cents,
> > are quite a bit larger than the just noticeable difference for
> > *harmonic* (though not for melodic) intervals; and it's only for
> > harmonic, or vertical, intervals where exact, simple-integer JI has a
> > sound perceptibly different from any slightly different tuning.
>
> I know I'm stepping late into a discussion of an existing definition
> (originally "sensibly just", currently "perceptibly just"), but there is
> something in this usage which is counter-intuitive to me. What you are
> currently talking about I would call "not perceptibly unjust". But that
> seems different to me from "perceptibly just" which to me should mean that
> qualities associated specifically with JI (e.g. a quite distinctly audible
> implied fundamental) should be clearly present. I think such qualities
are
> distinctly present with errors of 5 or 6 cents.
>
> I don't really need to argue about which term means what, as long as there
> are ways to cover the different meanings. The positive sense of
perceptibly
> just I just described needs some way of being referred to.
>
> -Kurt

Hi Kurt,
Of course you're welcome to join in! You also brought
something new and relevant to the discussion, I think.

I wouldn't call this "not perceptibly unjust", as it's a
double negative. However, I can see why you were
tempted to use such wording ... Generally, whenever we
are so tempted, there's some kind of category error
lurking - a case where our terms don't pose a question
with just a "yes" or "no" answer.

So, if you perceive justness, because of "a quite distinctly
audible implied fundamental", even in the presence of
mistunings as wide as 6 cents, it seems reasonable to
call that a kind of "perceptible justness". I guess we
haven't examined very closely that "special quality" of
perceptibly just intonation that Dave Keenan says he
can demonstrate but not define analytically. Perhaps it
IS possible, after all, to define?

So I'd like to analyse what other features may be present
in "perceptibly just intonation". You've given the audible
implied fundamental as an example. Others have mentioned
the lack of audible beats between overtones. Can you name
any others?

And could you have perceptibly just intonation _without_
any of those features; is any feature _necessary_?

Finally, do we care only about the presence or absence of
a feature, or do we care to what extent we can perceive
that feature? That is, are we ticking boxes or are we
taking measurements?

These questions are, of course open for anyone to opine
on ...

Regards,
Yahya