Why not 188?

188 seems to be a very good tuning with near-proportional beating 5/4 and 6/5, with a fifth almost just, another fifth tempered by almost a 2/7 comma. Two Superpythagorean fifths in range, excellent approximations up to prime 29. Why is it not desirable?

Cordially,
Ozan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> 188 seems to be a very good tuning with near-proportional beating
5/4 and 6/5, with a fifth almost just, another fifth tempered by
almost a 2/7 comma. Two Superpythagorean fifths in range, excellent
approximations up to prime 29. Why is it not desirable?

Who said it wasn't? This is the sort of thing people have been
proposing, with both meantone and near-just sizes of fifth. Why don't
you give a list of what you want; then we can find the smallest edo
which has all of that.

Relatively speaking, by the way, 188 isn't all that great at
approximating rational intervals; when you get up to divisions of that
size, I suspect your requirements will not be severe.

I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.

On Friday 30 September 2005 10:52 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> > 188 seems to be a very good tuning with near-proportional beating
>
> 5/4 and 6/5, with a fifth almost just, another fifth tempered by
> almost a 2/7 comma. Two Superpythagorean fifths in range, excellent
> approximations up to prime 29. Why is it not desirable?
>
> Who said it wasn't? This is the sort of thing people have been
> proposing, with both meantone and near-just sizes of fifth. Why don't
> you give a list of what you want; then we can find the smallest edo
> which has all of that.
>
> Relatively speaking, by the way, 188 isn't all that great at
> approximating rational intervals; when you get up to divisions of that
> size, I suspect your requirements will not be severe.
>
>
>
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

On 9/30/05, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
>
> I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.

But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals to within 1 cent.

--
~Tristan Parker
http://www.myspace.com/rozencrantz
"Western music is fast because it's out of tune"
-- Terry Riley

On Friday 30 September 2005 11:45 pm, Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> On 9/30/05, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:
> > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
>
> But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals to within 1 cent.

congrats, tristan, you fell for my facetiousness trap! ;)

-Aaron

> > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
>
> But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals
> to within 1 cent.

What actually is the purpose for searching for a
temperament? I especially ask this to Ozan. What do
you want to DO with it? If you had 131 pitches (or was
it another number I don't remember) then is that any
use for an instrument? Wouldn't that be too many
frets! Or, is it so you can make electronic music, and
so need to program a temperament? If you need all of
your Maqam pitches for an instrument, then why not
write down all the pitches you need, and there you
have it, your temperament that fits all your pitches,
and no extra (useless) ones. Why the wish for an ET?
Best wishes
Justin.

______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
>
>
> > > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
> >
> > But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals
> > to within 1 cent.
>
> What actually is the purpose for searching for a
> temperament? I especially ask this to Ozan. What do
> you want to DO with it? If you had 131 pitches (or was
> it another number I don't remember) then is that any
> use for an instrument? Wouldn't that be too many
> frets! Or, is it so you can make electronic music, and
> so need to program a temperament? If you need all of
> your Maqam pitches for an instrument, then why not
> write down all the pitches you need, and there you
> have it, your temperament that fits all your pitches,
> and no extra (useless) ones. Why the wish for an ET?
> Best wishes
> Justin.
>

Welcome to the Yahoo Theoretical/Hypothetical Scale Speculation
Group.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:
> On Friday 30 September 2005 11:45 pm, Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> > On 9/30/05, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:
> > > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
> >
> > But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals to within 1 cent.
>
> congrats, tristan, you fell for my facetiousness trap! ;)

And then you fell for his.

On Saturday 01 October 2005 1:13 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:
> > On Friday 30 September 2005 11:45 pm, Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> > > On 9/30/05, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:
> > > > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
> > >
> > > But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals to within 1 cent.
> >
> > congrats, tristan, you fell for my facetiousness trap! ;)
>
> And then you fell for his.

maybe...it's too hard to tell, because he can claim now that he meant it when
he might not have!

On Saturday 01 October 2005 3:51 am, Justin . wrote:
> > > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
> >
> > But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals
> > to within 1 cent.
>
> What actually is the purpose for searching for a
> temperament? I especially ask this to Ozan. What do
> you want to DO with it? If you had 131 pitches (or was
> it another number I don't remember) then is that any
> use for an instrument? Wouldn't that be too many
> frets! Or, is it so you can make electronic music, and
> so need to program a temperament? If you need all of
> your Maqam pitches for an instrument, then why not
> write down all the pitches you need, and there you
> have it, your temperament that fits all your pitches,
> and no extra (useless) ones. Why the wish for an ET?
> Best wishes
> Justin.

wait, tuning gets used on instruments? huh?

very little music gets made/discussed here. tuning theory is the reason for
this group, generally not the music made with it. not that that is all bad.
it's just the truth. it's good to have theoretical thinking going on. for the
practical aspects of creating music with instruments, it's a bit better over
in MMM.

i think ozan is writing a theoretical paper of some sort, and wants a unifying
concept.

-A.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
wrote:
> On Saturday 01 October 2005 3:51 am, Justin . wrote:
> > > > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
> > >
> > > But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals
> > > to within 1 cent.
> >
> > What actually is the purpose for searching for a
> > temperament? I especially ask this to Ozan. What do
> > you want to DO with it? If you had 131 pitches (or was
> > it another number I don't remember) then is that any
> > use for an instrument? Wouldn't that be too many
> > frets! Or, is it so you can make electronic music, and
> > so need to program a temperament? If you need all of
> > your Maqam pitches for an instrument, then why not
> > write down all the pitches you need, and there you
> > have it, your temperament that fits all your pitches,
> > and no extra (useless) ones. Why the wish for an ET?
> > Best wishes
> > Justin.
>
> wait, tuning gets used on instruments? huh?
>
> very little music gets made/discussed here. tuning theory is the
reason for
> this group, generally not the music made with it. not that that is
all bad.
> it's just the truth. it's good to have theoretical thinking going
on. for the
> practical aspects of creating music with instruments, it's a bit
better over
> in MMM.
>
> i think ozan is writing a theoretical paper of some sort, and
wants a unifying
> concept.
>
> -A.

What makes a Ruckers a Ruckers?
What makes a Stradivarius a Stradivarius?
What makes a Boehm a Boehm?
What makes a Steinway a Steinway?
Resonance.

The musical qualities of new mathematically generated tunings cannot
be assessed without including the subject of resonance.

This is why attempts to retune existing acoustical musical
instruments generally end in failure.

I restrung my Just Keys Piano three times and retuned it four times
to achieve a new tuning and resonance.

But then, if you rely on an electrical circuit to produce
oscillations, resonance will never be a musical or a
mathematical/acoustic issue.

Hahaha! good one Gene.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 21:13
Subject: [tuning] why not 1071-equal? (was: Re: Why not 188?)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:
> On Friday 30 September 2005 11:45 pm, Rozencrantz the Sane wrote:
> > On 9/30/05, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:
> > > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
> >
> > But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals to within 1 cent.
>
> congrats, tristan, you fell for my facetiousness trap! ;)

And then you fell for his.

Yes, welcome to the world of Mr. Cris Forster.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 18:16
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
>
>
> > > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
> >
> > But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals
> > to within 1 cent.
>
> What actually is the purpose for searching for a
> temperament? I especially ask this to Ozan. What do
> you want to DO with it? If you had 131 pitches (or was
> it another number I don't remember) then is that any
> use for an instrument? Wouldn't that be too many
> frets! Or, is it so you can make electronic music, and
> so need to program a temperament? If you need all of
> your Maqam pitches for an instrument, then why not
> write down all the pitches you need, and there you
> have it, your temperament that fits all your pitches,
> and no extra (useless) ones. Why the wish for an ET?
> Best wishes
> Justin.
>

Welcome to the Yahoo Theoretical/Hypothetical Scale Speculation
Group.

--- Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@akjmusic.com> wrote:

> wait, tuning gets used on instruments? huh?

What else would temperament be for?

> very little music gets made/discussed here. tuning
> theory is the reason for
> this group, generally not the music made with it.
> not that that is all bad.
> it's just the truth. it's good to have theoretical
> thinking going on.

Yes yes, must be good. I mean, I'm not saying it's not
good. Still, why? What is the theory for?

> for the
> practical aspects of creating music with
> instruments, it's a bit better over
> in MMM.

What is MMM?
Best wishes
Justin

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Justin,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin ." <justinasia@y...> wrote:
> What is MMM?

/makemicromusic/

A group started a few years ago by yours truly and a couple friends
who had dispaired of the tuning list ever ending up having even a
light focus on creating music. The tuning list, as it has evolved,
ends up being about tuning, end of subject. MMM (Making Microtonal
Music) was an attempt to have a forum with a focus on the music that
can come from non12 tunings, with encouragement, tools, etc. Not
perfect, but some people seem to feel better over there. Ably led
these days by Prent Rodgers, who also hosts a microtonal podcast.

Take a look.

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Chris,

> What makes a Ruckers a Ruckers?
> What makes a Stradivarius a Stradivarius?
> What makes a Boehm a Boehm?
> What makes a Steinway a Steinway?
> Resonance.
>
> The musical qualities of new mathematically generated tunings
> cannot be assessed without including the subject of resonance.

The subject of resonance, as you seem to be using it here,
can be addressed separately from that of tunings, in the
instrument design/building phase.

> This is why attempts to retune existing acoustical musical
> instruments generally end in failure.

They do?

> I restrung my Just Keys Piano three times and retuned it four
> times to achieve a new tuning and resonance.

Awesome!

> But then, if you rely on an electrical circuit to produce
> oscillations, resonance will never be a musical or a
> mathematical/acoustic issue.

Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.

-Carl

> Welcome to the Yahoo Theoretical/Hypothetical Scale Speculation
> Group.

That would be a good title for the tuning-math list. A good
title for this list would be: the Yahoo My Panties Are All
Bunched Up Because It Turned Out I Didn't Understand The Thing
I Was Complaining About list.

-Carl

> > wait, tuning gets used on instruments? huh?
>
> What else would temperament be for?

In tuning-math lingo, tunings and temperaments do not
ever get put on instruments; scales do.

> > very little music gets made/discussed here. tuning
> > theory is the reason for
> > this group, generally not the music made with it.
> > not that that is all bad.
> > it's just the truth. it's good to have theoretical
> > thinking going on.
>
> Yes yes, must be good. I mean, I'm not saying it's not
> good. Still, why? What is the theory for?

Aaron once asked for a 12-tone scale that had good 3s
and 7s, at the possible expense of 5s. Gene delivered
two scales, one of them within hours. Aaron has
improvized (and written, I think) some very impressive
music in at least one of these scales. He also commented
that they fulfilled his wishes beyond his expectations.

If you want more music on this list, make some. If you
don't want to read theory, unsubscribe to this list and
join MMM.

"It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up
to them."
- Alfred Adler

> > for the
> > practical aspects of creating music with
> > instruments, it's a bit better over
> > in MMM.
>
> What is MMM?

/makemicromusic

-Carl

Or how about the "Yahoo enough of your rambling about Maqams, be quiet and leave us conservative obscurantist clergymen alone list"?

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 02 Ekim 2005 Pazar 20:30
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

> Welcome to the Yahoo Theoretical/Hypothetical Scale Speculation
> Group.

That would be a good title for the tuning-math list. A good
title for this list would be: the Yahoo My Panties Are All
Bunched Up Because It Turned Out I Didn't Understand The Thing
I Was Complaining About list.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> > What makes a Ruckers a Ruckers?
> > What makes a Stradivarius a Stradivarius?
> > What makes a Boehm a Boehm?
> > What makes a Steinway a Steinway?
> > Resonance.
> >
> > The musical qualities of new mathematically generated tunings
> > cannot be assessed without including the subject of resonance.
>
> The subject of resonance, as you seem to be using it here,
> can be addressed separately from that of tunings, in the
> instrument design/building phase.
>
> > This is why attempts to retune existing acoustical musical
> > instruments generally end in failure.
>
> They do?
>
> > I restrung my Just Keys Piano three times and retuned it four
> > times to achieve a new tuning and resonance.
>
> Awesome!
>
> > But then, if you rely on an electrical circuit to produce
> > oscillations, resonance will never be a musical or a
> > mathematical/acoustic issue.
>
> Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
> the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
>
> -Carl

Perhaps someday you will also try to convince me that you've
synthesized sunlight.

******************************

[313] Alexander spoke kindly to him, and asked if there was anything
he wished.

"Yes," answered Diogenes, "I would have you not stand between me and
the sun."

******************************

Cris

The purpose of a temperament is to close the cycle of endless JI intervals, so as to facilitate transposition of scales at every significant degree of tuning. Writing down JI intervals will not solve anything, because you cannot modulate everywhere in JI without getting bitten by wolves.

What I want to do with a temperament of such sizes as 188 and 193 is obvious. Maqam Music requires meantone mapping for its default scale Rast, but also requires a Pythagorean, or even a Super-Pythagorean mapping for Suz-i Dilara. Without different sizes of usable fifths, one will have a chain that is broken and audibly intolerable. Not only that, but transposability shall be ruined, modulations will be limited to only a few degrees at most, progress will halt, stagnation will commence, education methodology shall be hopelessly clogged with the dust of decades, etc...

Implementing an ideal tuning to an instrument is the next step after locating a managable solution for the observed phenomenon. For this, I have already implemented 79 MOS 159-tET on my Qanun. Yes, it must look very scary with over 350 mandals. I must go to Izmir to collect it after attending the symposium here in Istanbul.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Justin .
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 11:51
Subject: Re: [tuning] Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

> > I think 1071-tet has a lot going for it.
>
> But only 1200-tet can approximate all just intervals
> to within 1 cent.

What actually is the purpose for searching for a
temperament? I especially ask this to Ozan. What do
you want to DO with it? If you had 131 pitches (or was
it another number I don't remember) then is that any
use for an instrument? Wouldn't that be too many
frets! Or, is it so you can make electronic music, and
so need to program a temperament? If you need all of
your Maqam pitches for an instrument, then why not
write down all the pitches you need, and there you
have it, your temperament that fits all your pitches,
and no extra (useless) ones. Why the wish for an ET?
Best wishes
Justin.

----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Krister Johnson
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 01 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 21:44
Subject: Re: [tuning] Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

wait, tuning gets used on instruments? huh?

Duh, I've specified the Qanun maker to utilize my tuning so that I can play every maqam over all significant degrees of transposition.

i think ozan is writing a theoretical paper of some sort, and wants a unifying
concept.

-A.

I merely want to be able to explain the observed phenomenon in such a way as to facilitate understanding and allowing for the correct usage of Staff Notation.

On Sunday 02 October 2005 9:25 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:

> Implementing an ideal tuning to an instrument is the next step after
> locating a managable solution for the observed phenomenon. For this, I have
> already implemented 79 MOS 159-tET on my Qanun. Yes, it must look very
> scary with over 350 mandals. I must go to Izmir to collect it after
> attending the symposium here in Istanbul.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan

Ozan,

I assume mandals are some sort of fret?

cheers,
aaron.

`Latches` my dear fellow, yes they are the frets of the Qanun.
----- Original Message -----
From: Aaron Krister Johnson
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 5:49
Subject: Re: [tuning] Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

Ozan,

I assume mandals are some sort of fret?

cheers,
aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
wrote:
> On Sunday 02 October 2005 9:25 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> > Implementing an ideal tuning to an instrument is the next step
after
> > locating a managable solution for the observed phenomenon. For
this, I have
> > already implemented 79 MOS 159-tET on my Qanun. Yes, it must
look very
> > scary with over 350 mandals. I must go to Izmir to collect it
after
> > attending the symposium here in Istanbul.
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Ozan
>
> Ozan,
>
> I assume mandals are some sort of fret?
>
> cheers,
> aaron.

Aaron,

On a traditional qanun, the left ends of the strings (near the
tuning pins) terminate in a series of hinged levers designed to push
up against the open strings, thereby shorting (or raising the
frequencies) of the strings in one-comma increments.

Cris

> > > But then, if you rely on an electrical circuit to produce
> > > oscillations, resonance will never be a musical or a
> > > mathematical/acoustic issue.
> >
> > Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> > subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
> > the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
>
> Perhaps someday you will also try to convince me that you've
> synthesized sunlight.

I think that for music that will be played, for whatever
reason, out of speakers, it's hard to be the control over
dynamic range and everything else that digital music
production (including synthesis) provides. But given the
choice between speakers and real instruments, I'd choose
the latter any day. In fact my own history as a musician
has been almost entirely in the acoustic medium.

-Carl

You go tell that to the most renown Qanun maker in Turkey who uses 72-tET instead where each lever equates to an interval of 16.7 cents.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 18:49
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
wrote:
> On Sunday 02 October 2005 9:25 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> > Implementing an ideal tuning to an instrument is the next step
after
> > locating a managable solution for the observed phenomenon. For
this, I have
> > already implemented 79 MOS 159-tET on my Qanun. Yes, it must
look very
> > scary with over 350 mandals. I must go to Izmir to collect it
after
> > attending the symposium here in Istanbul.
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Ozan
>
> Ozan,
>
> I assume mandals are some sort of fret?
>
> cheers,
> aaron.

Aaron,

On a traditional qanun, the left ends of the strings (near the
tuning pins) terminate in a series of hinged levers designed to push
up against the open strings, thereby shorting (or raising the
frequencies) of the strings in one-comma increments.

Cris

I said "traditional."
I said "hinged levers."

>`Latches` my dear fellow, yes they are the frets of the Qanun.

Hinged levers my dear fellow are not "latches"
and they do not my dear fellow function as "frets."
You can go tell that to any qanun builder,
no matter how much of a snob you may think he may be.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> You go tell that to the most renown Qanun maker in Turkey who uses
72-tET instead where each lever equates to an interval of 16.7 cents.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cris Forster
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 03 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 18:49
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@a...>
> wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 October 2005 9:25 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> >
> > > Implementing an ideal tuning to an instrument is the next
step
> after
> > > locating a managable solution for the observed phenomenon.
For
> this, I have
> > > already implemented 79 MOS 159-tET on my Qanun. Yes, it must
> look very
> > > scary with over 350 mandals. I must go to Izmir to collect
it
> after
> > > attending the symposium here in Istanbul.
> > >
> > > Cordially,
> > > Ozan
> >
> > Ozan,
> >
> > I assume mandals are some sort of fret?
> >
> > cheers,
> > aaron.
>
> Aaron,
>
> On a traditional qanun, the left ends of the strings (near the
> tuning pins) terminate in a series of hinged levers designed to
push
> up against the open strings, thereby shorting (or raising the
> frequencies) of the strings in one-comma increments.
>
> Cris

how can you reconcile his 72 with your 79 of 159?

>Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:31:16 +0300
> From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@superonline.com>
>Subject: Re: Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)
>
>You go tell that to the most renown Qanun maker in Turkey who uses 72-tET instead where each lever equates to an interval of 16.7 cents.
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

I DO NOT. Period. 72-tET is the easy way out, chosen haphazardly, with the wrong pitches, broken chains of fifths, having neither a theoretical background for Maqam Music nor justification. Have you played a Qanun in 72-tET? Well, I have. 100 cent semitones are unbearable to listen to, the microtones do not satisfy and many are certainly not the desired intervals we hear and measure. That is why people detune their Qanuns out of 72-tET.
----- Original Message -----
From: Kraig Grady
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salı 18:32
Subject: [tuning] Re: Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

how can you reconcile his 72 with your 79 of 159?

>Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 10:31:16 +0300
> From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@superonline.com>
>Subject: Re: Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)
>
>You go tell that to the most renown Qanun maker in Turkey who uses 72-tET instead where each lever equates to an interval of 16.7 cents.
>
>

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Uh, so sorry to spoil the English language for you, Mr. Shakespeare. `Latch` comes from the Old English "læccan", which literally means `to catch` as if with the finger tips. I felt the liberty to stretch the usage a little, as there is some resemblance between this and the grasping of the Qanun mandals.

And it seems I'm not the only one:

http://www.zargan.com/goster.asp?DisplayLang=1&dil=2&sozcuk=latch

İngilizce Türkçe Kategori

latch mandal TBD Bilişim
latch kapı mandalı İDS
latch mandallamak İDS
latch kilit mandalı İDS
latch sürgü İDS
latch sürme İDS

As for the term `frets of the Qanun`, why would you want to believe that mandals do not function as frets? Really, you are losing your `touch` with the world methinks.

----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salı 17:20
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

I said "traditional."
I said "hinged levers."

>`Latches` my dear fellow, yes they are the frets of the Qanun.

Hinged levers my dear fellow are not "latches"
and they do not my dear fellow function as "frets."
You can go tell that to any qanun builder,
no matter how much of a snob you may think he may be.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> I DO NOT. Period. 72-tET is the easy way out, chosen haphazardly,
with the wrong pitches, broken chains of fifths, having neither a
theoretical background for Maqam Music nor justification. Have you
played a Qanun in 72-tET? Well, I have. 100 cent semitones are
unbearable to listen to, the microtones do not satisfy and many are
certainly not the desired intervals we hear and measure. That is why
people detune their Qanuns out of 72-tET.

It might be interesting if you would detail which intervals sound
wrong, and in what direction. You say, for instance, that 100 cent
semitones are all wrong, but what's right? Why do you need an unbroken
chain of fifths? You've been considering systems with multiple chains
yourself, after all.

Gene, a detailed analysis is not possible to give right now. Forgive my shortcoming in this subject. I take back what I said. 8 cents error is within a (barely) tolerable range. It's just that the mapping of "natural" perdes to "natural keys" cannot be done properly in 72-tET. Haven't I told you my reasons? The chain of fifths in 72 do not allow a safe leap from Maqam Rast to Suz-i Dilara. The actual system is very complicated and we do need multiple chains.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salı 21:20
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

It might be interesting if you would detail which intervals sound
wrong, and in what direction. You say, for instance, that 100 cent
semitones are all wrong, but what's right? Why do you need an unbroken chain of fifths? You've been considering systems with multiple chains yourself, after all.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> Gene, a detailed analysis is not possible to give right now. Forgive
my shortcoming in this subject. I take back what I said. 8 cents error
is within a (barely) tolerable range. It's just that the mapping of
"natural" perdes to "natural keys" cannot be done properly in 72-tET.
Haven't I told you my reasons?

Yes, you think we need both a meantone and a near-pure fifth, and 72
doesn't give us that. Instead it compromises with the 12-et fifth.
Still, it would be an interesting starting point, as would 53, in
exploring what you think goes wrong. It would also be nice to know how
flat you think a meantone fifth can acceptably get, and how closely
you want to come to a pure fifth.

Cris wrote:

> > > > But then, if you rely on an electrical circuit to produce
> > > > oscillations, resonance will never be a musical or a
> > > > mathematical/acoustic issue.

Carl wrote:

> > > Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> > > subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
> > > the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.

Me:

I have no idea where Carl is getting this from. Resonance (i.e.,
sympathetic vibration) is used is subtractive synthesis? Please, fill
me in.

Cris:

> > Perhaps someday you will also try to convince me that you've
> > synthesized sunlight.

Thank you for your understanding Gene. 72 is indeed a good experimental model to demonstrate why things go wrong. Try to play Rast on the white keys with E and B lowered by one degree. Then play the Suz-i Dilara in turn by raising E, A and B by one degree. You see what I mean?

694 cents is a good lower limit, 702 cents is the ideal size for a pure fifth, 710 is the desired size for the Super-Pythagorean fifth. You will find these three in my 79 MOS 159-tET suggestion.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salı 22:43
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

Yes, you think we need both a meantone and a near-pure fifth, and 72 doesn't give us that. Instead it compromises with the 12-et fifth. Still, it would be an interesting starting point, as would 53, in exploring what you think goes wrong. It would also be nice to know how flat you think a meantone fifth can acceptably get, and how closely you want to come to a pure fifth.

"wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com> writes:

> Carl wrote:
>
> > > > Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> > > > subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
> > > > the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
>
> Me:
>
> I have no idea where Carl is getting this from. Resonance (i.e.,
> sympathetic vibration) is used is subtractive synthesis? Please, fill
> me in.

I know (a little) about resonance in analog subtractive synthesis --
it's not sympathetic vibration; it's a filter parameter -- the amount
by which the amplitude is boosted near the cutoff frequency. You can
think of it as a crude modelling of the effect of a resonant cavity in
an acoustic instrument, if you like, though in synthesis the resonance
(and cutoff frequency) can vary with time to give effects you don't
normally get with acoustic instruments.

But I'm surprised to hear an assertion that subtractive synthesis is
the single most used type of synthesis these days.

- Rich Holmes

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> 694 cents is a good lower limit, 702 cents is the ideal size for a
pure fifth, 710 is the desired size for the Super-Pythagorean fifth.
You will find these three in my 79 MOS 159-tET suggestion.

159 works, but 140 gets within a cent of a pure fifth, and represents
7-limit intervals more accurately. Other possibilities are Paul's
proposed 152 as a universal system, and 171, which is sensibly just up
to the 7-limit. Both of these latter have 19-cycles as a way of
dealing with meantone.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Rich Holmes<rsholmes@m...> wrote:
> "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> writes:
>
> > Carl wrote:
> >
> > > > > Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> > > > > subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
> > > > > the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
> >
> > Me:
> >
> > I have no idea where Carl is getting this from. Resonance (i.e.,
> > sympathetic vibration) is used is subtractive synthesis? Please,
fill
> > me in.
>
> I know (a little) about resonance in analog subtractive synthesis --
> it's not sympathetic vibration; it's a filter parameter -- the
amount
> by which the amplitude is boosted near the cutoff frequency.

Of course, and that's clearly not the kind of resonance Cris was
talking about! From the context of Cris's post, "symathetic
vibration" clearly seemed to be the meaning he intended.

> You can
> think of it as a crude modelling of the effect of a resonant cavity
in
> an acoustic instrument, if you like, though in synthesis the
resonance
> (and cutoff frequency) can vary with time to give effects you don't
> normally get with acoustic instruments.
>
> But I'm surprised to hear an assertion that subtractive synthesis is
> the single most used type of synthesis these days.
>
> - Rich Holmes

I shall ponder on your suggestions. I have also found out indepentantly that 140 could be employed with mixed meantone and pure fifths. 152, on the other hand, seems great with a 165 notation scheme.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 0:03
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> 694 cents is a good lower limit, 702 cents is the ideal size for a
pure fifth, 710 is the desired size for the Super-Pythagorean fifth.
You will find these three in my 79 MOS 159-tET suggestion.

159 works, but 140 gets within a cent of a pure fifth, and represents
7-limit intervals more accurately. Other possibilities are Paul's
proposed 152 as a universal system, and 171, which is sensibly just up
to the 7-limit. Both of these latter have 19-cycles as a way of
dealing with meantone.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> Cris wrote:
>
> > > > > But then, if you rely on an electrical circuit to produce
> > > > > oscillations, resonance will never be a musical or a
> > > > > mathematical/acoustic issue.
>
> Carl wrote:
>
> > > > Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> > > > subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
> > > > the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
>
> Me:
>
> I have no idea where Carl is getting this from. Resonance (i.e.,
> sympathetic vibration) is used is subtractive synthesis? Please,
> fill me in.

Resonant filters. Ever used a subtractive synthesizer?

-Carl

> > > > > Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> > > > > subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
> > > > > the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
> >
> > Me:
> >
> > I have no idea where Carl is getting this from. Resonance (i.e.,
> > sympathetic vibration) is used is subtractive synthesis? Please,
> > fill me in.
>
> I know (a little) about resonance in analog subtractive
> synthesis -- it's not sympathetic vibration; it's a filter
> parameter -- the amount by which the amplitude is boosted
> near the cutoff frequency. You can think of it as a crude
> modelling of the effect of a resonant cavity in an acoustic
> instrument, if you like, though in synthesis the resonance
> (and cutoff frequency) can vary with time to give effects
> you don't normally get with acoustic instruments.

Correct.

> But I'm surprised to hear an assertion that subtractive
> synthesis is the single most used type of synthesis these days.

Do you listen to popular music? What started with techno
in the early 90s, took off with "analog modeling" synths like
the Access Virus in the mid-late 90s, and is now ubiquitous
in pop and indie genres. Most (if not all) bands I know of
or would think of covering use subtractive synths as their
primary keyboard instruments.

-Carl

>>>> Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
>>>> subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these
>>>> days) the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
>>>
>>> I have no idea where Carl is getting this from. Resonance (i.e.,
>>> sympathetic vibration) is used is subtractive synthesis? Please,
>>> fill me in.
> >
> > I know (a little) about resonance in analog subtractive
> > synthesis -- it's not sympathetic vibration; it's a filter
> > parameter -- the amount by which the amplitude is boosted
> > near the cutoff frequency. You can think of it as a crude
> > modelling of the effect of a resonant cavity in an acoustic
> > instrument, if you like,

> Of course, and that's clearly not the kind of resonance Cris was
> talking about! From the context of Cris's post, "symathetic
> vibration" clearly seemed to be the meaning he intended.

My understanding of the analog circuits used to create this
effect (and the typical digital models used to simulate these
cirtuits) is that they do employ resonance, the very same
musically-significant phenomenon of acoustic cavities (though
of course the typical resonant filter is much less intricate
than the typical cello body).

> > though in synthesis the resonance (and cutoff frequency)
> > can vary with time to give effects you don't normally get
> > with acoustic instruments.

This is completely irrelavent to my refutation of Chis' point.

-Carl

152 with a 165 notation scheme? I don't know why or how, but wouldn't
you rather notate 152 as a conventionally-notated 19-equal circle,
with 4 equally-spaced degrees of alteration up or down that can be
notated on each 19-equal note?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> I shall ponder on your suggestions. I have also found out
>indepentantly that 140 could be employed with mixed meantone and
>pure fifths. 152, on the other hand, seems great with a 165 notation
>scheme.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gene Ward Smith
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarþamba 0:03
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
wrote:
>
> > 694 cents is a good lower limit, 702 cents is the ideal size
for a
> pure fifth, 710 is the desired size for the Super-Pythagorean
fifth.
> You will find these three in my 79 MOS 159-tET suggestion.
>
> 159 works, but 140 gets within a cent of a pure fifth, and
represents
> 7-limit intervals more accurately. Other possibilities are Paul's
> proposed 152 as a universal system, and 171, which is sensibly
just up
> to the 7-limit. Both of these latter have 19-cycles as a way of
> dealing with meantone.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > Cris wrote:
> >
> > > > > > But then, if you rely on an electrical circuit to produce
> > > > > > oscillations, resonance will never be a musical or a
> > > > > > mathematical/acoustic issue.
> >
> > Carl wrote:
> >
> > > > > Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> > > > > subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
> > > > > the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
> >
> > Me:
> >
> > I have no idea where Carl is getting this from. Resonance (i.e.,
> > sympathetic vibration) is used is subtractive synthesis? Please,
> > fill me in.
>
> Resonant filters. Ever used a subtractive synthesizer?

I know about simple electronic-circuit filters, how they have a
resonant frequency and a Q factor or a certain dB/octave rolloff,
usually 6, etc. But isn't it clear that Cris was talking about
something very different, namely sympathetic vibration? Or am I
missing something?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> But isn't it clear that Cris was talking about
> something very different, namely sympathetic vibration? Or am I
> missing something?

I thought it was clear that your take on it is the correct one. Cris
has spent a lifetime not only playing acoustic instruments, but
designing, refining, and building them as well. He lives in a world of
vibrations and their accompanying resonances. Pluck a few strings on a
canon (or any sounding box with multiple strings) and see if there
aren't resonances that occur.

Maybe the clarity of the comment, if you and I are both correct, is
because I know a little bit about Cris as a musician. I imagine most
people would have assumed this, rather than an electronic resonant
filter. However, Paul, you and I might be lame.

Cheers,
Jon

Can you show me how that would be done in specific terms?
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 2:35
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

152 with a 165 notation scheme? I don't know why or how, but wouldn't
you rather notate 152 as a conventionally-notated 19-equal circle,
with 4 equally-spaced degrees of alteration up or down that can be
notated on each 19-equal note?

0: C
8: C#
16: Db
24: D
32: D#
40: Eb
48: E
56: E#=Fb
64: F
72: F#
80: Gb
88: G
96: G#
104: Ab
112: A
120: A#
128: Bb
136: B
144: B#=Cb
152: c

These are 8 degrees apart. So we need a few additional symbols to
inflect any of those by up to 4 degrees either upward or downward.
Then we can notate all the notes of 152-equal.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Can you show me how that would be done in specific terms?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarþamba 2:35
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> 152 with a 165 notation scheme? I don't know why or how, but
wouldn't
> you rather notate 152 as a conventionally-notated 19-equal
circle,
> with 4 equally-spaced degrees of alteration up or down that can
be
> notated on each 19-equal note?

Resonance in the context of Ruckers, Stradivarius, Boehm, and
Steinway has nothing to do with "sympathetic resonance."

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> Cris wrote:
>
> > > > > But then, if you rely on an electrical circuit to produce
> > > > > oscillations, resonance will never be a musical or a
> > > > > mathematical/acoustic issue.
>
> Carl wrote:
>
> > > > Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> > > > subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these days)
> > > > the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
>
> Me:
>
> I have no idea where Carl is getting this from. Resonance (i.e.,
> sympathetic vibration) is used is subtractive synthesis? Please,
fill
> me in.
>
> Cris:
>
> > > Perhaps someday you will also try to convince me that you've
> > > synthesized sunlight.

Hi there Cris!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...> wrote:
> Resonance in the context of Ruckers, Stradivarius, Boehm, and
> Steinway has nothing to do with "sympathetic resonance."

Well, since *I* kind of stuck my neck out, hazarding a guess as to
what general meaning you were implying, could you just state, in as
straight-forward a manner as possible, what definition of "resonance"
you are referring to? I'm still going on the assumption it deals with
acoustical properties of physical instruments...

Cheers,
Jon

I'd really like to know how anyone could create a sympathetic
resonance in a Boehm flute.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>>> Resonance is probably the single most used phenomenon in
> >>>> subtractive synthesis, which also happens to be (these
> >>>> days) the single most used (or so it seems) type of synthesis.
> >>>
> >>> I have no idea where Carl is getting this from. Resonance
(i.e.,
> >>> sympathetic vibration) is used is subtractive synthesis?
Please,
> >>> fill me in.
> > >
> > > I know (a little) about resonance in analog subtractive
> > > synthesis -- it's not sympathetic vibration; it's a filter
> > > parameter -- the amount by which the amplitude is boosted
> > > near the cutoff frequency. You can think of it as a crude
> > > modelling of the effect of a resonant cavity in an acoustic
> > > instrument, if you like,
>
> > Of course, and that's clearly not the kind of resonance Cris was
> > talking about! From the context of Cris's post, "symathetic
> > vibration" clearly seemed to be the meaning he intended.
>
> My understanding of the analog circuits used to create this
> effect (and the typical digital models used to simulate these
> cirtuits) is that they do employ resonance, the very same
> musically-significant phenomenon of acoustic cavities (though
> of course the typical resonant filter is much less intricate
> than the typical cello body).
>
> > > though in synthesis the resonance (and cutoff frequency)
> > > can vary with time to give effects you don't normally get
> > > with acoustic instruments.
>
> This is completely irrelavent to my refutation of Chis' point.
>
> -Carl

By definition, any fretted string does *not* sound the fundamental
mode, or first harmonic, of that string.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Uh, so sorry to spoil the English language for you, Mr.
Shakespeare. `Latch` comes from the Old English "læccan", which
literally means `to catch` as if with the finger tips. I felt the
liberty to stretch the usage a little, as there is some resemblance
between this and the grasping of the Qanun mandals.
>
> And it seems I'm not the only one:
>
> http://www.zargan.com/goster.asp?DisplayLang=1&dil=2&sozcuk=latch
>
> Ýngilizce Türkçe Kategori
>
> latch mandal TBD Biliþim
> latch kapý mandalý ÝDS
> latch mandallamak ÝDS
> latch kilit mandalý ÝDS
> latch sürgü ÝDS
> latch sürme ÝDS
>
>
>
> As for the term `frets of the Qanun`, why would you want to
believe that mandals do not function as frets? Really, you are
losing your `touch` with the world methinks.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cris Forster
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salý 17:20
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> I said "traditional."
> I said "hinged levers."
>
> >`Latches` my dear fellow, yes they are the frets of the Qanun.
>
> Hinged levers my dear fellow are not "latches"
> and they do not my dear fellow function as "frets."
> You can go tell that to any qanun builder,
> no matter how much of a snob you may think he may be.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> Hi there Cris!
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...>
wrote:
> > Resonance in the context of Ruckers, Stradivarius, Boehm, and
> > Steinway has nothing to do with "sympathetic resonance."
>
> Well, since *I* kind of stuck my neck out, hazarding a guess as to
> what general meaning you were implying, could you just state, in as
> straight-forward a manner as possible, what definition
of "resonance"
> you are referring to? I'm still going on the assumption it deals
with
> acoustical properties of physical instruments...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Jon!

Good to hear from you after so many years!

Yes, you are right. I am talking about the physical properties of a
musical instrument. As you know, the most obvious kind of resonance
occurs between a marimba bar and a 1/4-wavelength resonator, because
both the bar and the resonator are tuned to the same frequency.
Partch lusciously referred to this as a coupling.

However, with respect to air cavities in violins, guitars, and old
harpsichords, etc., one cannot tune these kinds of resonators to
discrete sets of frequencies. On a violin, for example, the
thickness of the top plate (spruce) and the back plate (maple), and
the quality of the wood and varnish play a crucial role in how these
wooden members transmit mechanical energy from the string to the air
inside the chamber. Further, the purfling around the top plate
causes the plate to vibrate somewhat like a hinge; this is another
crucial element that affects resonance. Rib and bridge placements
on piano soundboards also have a critical effect on resonance;
string thicknesses and frequencies must also be considered in this
context. In short, all acoustic musical instruments consist of
energy chains: in pianos -- from the force of a finger, to key, to
action parts, to hammer, to string, to soundboard, to air. Energy
chains can be measured with impedance equations: a very complex
subject.

Of course, if one's ears are not sensitized to critically evaluate
resonance, no amount of materials or equations will due.

Sincerely,

Cris

Hi Jon!

It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

Yes, you are right. I am talking about the physical properties of
acoustic musical instrument. As you know, the most obvious kind of
resonance occurs between a marimba bar and a 1/4-wavelength
resonator. Because both the bar and the resonator are tuned to the
same frequency, resonance is immediately perceptible. Partch
lusciously referred to this kind of resonance as a coupling.

However, the air cavities (resonators) of violins, guitars, old
harpsichords, etc, cannot be tuned to discrete sets of frequencies.
In violins, the top plate (spruce) and the back plate (maple) play a
crucial role in transmitting mechanical energy from vibrating
strings to the cavity resonator. The quality and all the subtle
dimensions of the wood, and the varnish, are extremely important.
Furthermore, the purfling that surrounds the top plate causes the
plate to move somewhat like a hinge, thereby further enhancing
resonance. In pianos, again, the quality of the soundboard is
critical, also the placement of ribs and bridges; string properties
and frequencies must be taken into considerations as well. In
short, all acoustic musical instruments consist of energy chains:
in the piano -- from the force of a finger, to key, the action
parts, to hammer, to string, to soundboard, to air. One may measure
the resistance and subsequent resonance of all vibrating parts with
impedance equations and specialized apparatuses: a very complex
subject.

In the end, one must have a sensitive and critical ear to assess the
musical qualities of resonance. No amount of good wood and good
equations is going to get the job done.

Partch: "They call my music experimental; they haven't seen the
real experiments!"

Sincerely,

Cris

P.S. This is the third time I've tired to upload my response.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> Hi there Cris!
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...>
wrote:
> > Resonance in the context of Ruckers, Stradivarius, Boehm, and
> > Steinway has nothing to do with "sympathetic resonance."
>
> Well, since *I* kind of stuck my neck out, hazarding a guess as to
> what general meaning you were implying, could you just state, in as
> straight-forward a manner as possible, what definition
of "resonance"
> you are referring to? I'm still going on the assumption it deals
with
> acoustical properties of physical instruments...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> Hi there Cris!
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...>
wrote:
> > Resonance in the context of Ruckers, Stradivarius, Boehm, and
> > Steinway has nothing to do with "sympathetic resonance."
>
> Well, since *I* kind of stuck my neck out, hazarding a guess as to
> what general meaning you were implying, could you just state, in as
> straight-forward a manner as possible, what definition
of "resonance"
> you are referring to? I'm still going on the assumption it deals
with
> acoustical properties of physical instruments...
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Hi Jon!

It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

Yes, you are right. I am talking about the physical properties of
acoustic musical instrument. As you know, the most obvious kind of
resonance occurs between a marimba bar and a 1/4-wavelength
resonator. Because both the bar and the resonator are tuned to the
same frequency, resonance is immediately perceptible. Partch
lusciously referred to this kind of resonance as a coupling.

However, the air cavities (resonators) of violins, guitars, old
harpsichords, etc, cannot be tuned to discrete sets of frequencies.
In violins, the top plate (spruce) and the back plate (maple) play a
crucial role in transmitting mechanical energy from vibrating
strings to the cavity resonator. The quality and all the subtle
dimensions of the wood, and the varnish, are extremely important.
Furthermore, the purfling that surrounds the top plate causes the
plate to move somewhat like a hinge, thereby further enhancing
resonance. In pianos, again, the quality of the soundboard is
critical, also the placement of ribs and bridges; string properties
and frequencies must be taken into considerations as well. In
short, all acoustic musical instruments consist of energy chains:
in the piano -- from the force of a finger, to key, the action
parts, to hammer, to string, to soundboard, to air. One may measure
the resistance and subsequent resonance of all vibrating parts with
impedance equations and specialized apparatuses: a very complex
subject.

In the end, one must have a sensitive and critical ear to assess the
musical qualities of resonance. No amount of good wood and good
equations is going to get the job done.

Partch: "They call my music experimental; they haven't seen the
real experiments!"

Sincerely,

Cris

By definition, a fretted string does not sound the fundamental,
or first harmonic, of the string

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Uh, so sorry to spoil the English language for you, Mr.
Shakespeare. `Latch` comes from the Old English "læccan", which
literally means `to catch` as if with the finger tips. I felt the
liberty to stretch the usage a little, as there is some resemblance
between this and the grasping of the Qanun mandals.
>
> And it seems I'm not the only one:
>
> http://www.zargan.com/goster.asp?DisplayLang=1&dil=2&sozcuk=latch
>
> Ýngilizce Türkçe Kategori
>
> latch mandal TBD Biliþim
> latch kapý mandalý ÝDS
> latch mandallamak ÝDS
> latch kilit mandalý ÝDS
> latch sürgü ÝDS
> latch sürme ÝDS
>
>
>
> As for the term `frets of the Qanun`, why would you want to
believe that mandals do not function as frets? Really, you are
losing your `touch` with the world methinks.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cris Forster
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salý 17:20
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> I said "traditional."
> I said "hinged levers."
>
> >`Latches` my dear fellow, yes they are the frets of the Qanun.
>
> Hinged levers my dear fellow are not "latches"
> and they do not my dear fellow function as "frets."
> You can go tell that to any qanun builder,
> no matter how much of a snob you may think he may be.

"Cris Forster" <cris.forster@comcast.net> writes:

> I'd really like to know how anyone could create a sympathetic
> resonance in a Boehm flute.

You can't play a Boehm flute, or any other wind instrument, without
making use of resonances. Well, you could use it as a drum stick, I
suppose.

- Rich Holmes

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Rich Holmes<rsholmes@m...> wrote:
> "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...> writes:
>
> > I'd really like to know how anyone could create a sympathetic
> > resonance in a Boehm flute.
>
> You can't play a Boehm flute, or any other wind instrument, without
> making use of resonances. Well, you could use it as a drum stick, I
> suppose.
>
> - Rich Holmes

The terms "sympathetic" and "resonance" are not synonymous.

Cris

In case you didn't notice, we are talking about frets, not strings.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 4:48
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

By definition, any fretted string does *not* sound the fundamental
mode, or first harmonic, of that string.

Jon Szanto wrote:

> Maybe the clarity of the comment, if you and I are both correct, is
> because I know a little bit about Cris as a musician. I imagine most
> people would have assumed this, rather than an electronic resonant
> filter. However, Paul, you and I might be lame.

I naturally assumed he was trolling. But then I only know the way he behaves online.

Graham

No. We are actually talking about how strings are stopped. Strings
that are stopped between a fret and a bridge, or between a fret and a
nut, do not sound the fundamental frequency of that string.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> In case you didn't notice, we are talking about frets, not strings.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cris Forster
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarþamba 4:48
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> By definition, any fretted string does *not* sound the fundamental
> mode, or first harmonic, of that string.

What does that have to do with Qanun hinges not functioning as frets? Just as the fret indicates the focal point for shortening a string lenght, so does the "latch". Their roles are identical in every sense of the word, if not their ranges.

----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 18:23
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

No. We are actually talking about how strings are stopped. Strings
that are stopped between a fret and a bridge, or between a fret and a
nut, do not sound the fundamental frequency of that string.

Thank you, Jon.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> Jon Szanto wrote:
>
> > Maybe the clarity of the comment, if you and I are both correct, is
> > because I know a little bit about Cris as a musician. I imagine most
> > people would have assumed this, rather than an electronic resonant
> > filter. However, Paul, you and I might be lame.
>
> I naturally assumed he was trolling. But then I only know the way he
> behaves online.
>
>
> Graham

IMHO, the hinged levers of a qanun function as movable nuts.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> What does that have to do with Qanun hinges not functioning as
frets? Just as the fret indicates the focal point for shortening a
string lenght, so does the "latch". Their roles are identical in
every sense of the word, if not their ranges.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cris Forster
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarþamba 18:23
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> No. We are actually talking about how strings are stopped.
Strings
> that are stopped between a fret and a bridge, or between a fret
and a
> nut, do not sound the fundamental frequency of that string.

You don't say! Have you built a Qanun yourself or specified measurements in the design of one then?

----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 18:51
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

IMHO, the hinged levers of a qanun function as movable nuts.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> What does that have to do with Qanun hinges not functioning as
frets? Just as the fret indicates the focal point for shortening a
string lenght, so does the "latch". Their roles are identical in
every sense of the word, if not their ranges.
>
>

Oh, I nearly forgot. Frets ARE movable nuts. Now that's an issue for nutcases alright.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cris Forster
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 18:51
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

IMHO, the hinged levers of a qanun function as movable nuts.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> What does that have to do with Qanun hinges not functioning as
frets? Just as the fret indicates the focal point for shortening a
string lenght, so does the "latch". Their roles are identical in
every sense of the word, if not their ranges.
>
>

Vive la GRANDE différence.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Oh, I nearly forgot. Frets ARE movable nuts. Now that's an issue
for nutcases alright.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cris Forster
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarþamba 18:51
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> IMHO, the hinged levers of a qanun function as movable nuts.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
wrote:
> > What does that have to do with Qanun hinges not functioning as
> frets? Just as the fret indicates the focal point for shortening
a
> string lenght, so does the "latch". Their roles are identical in
> every sense of the word, if not their ranges.
> >
> >

"Cris Forster" <cris.forster@comcast.net> writes:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Rich Holmes<rsholmes@m...> wrote:
> > "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...> writes:
> >
> > > I'd really like to know how anyone could create a sympathetic
> > > resonance in a Boehm flute.
> >
> > You can't play a Boehm flute, or any other wind instrument, without
> > making use of resonances. Well, you could use it as a drum stick, I
> > suppose.
> >
> > - Rich Holmes
>
>
> The terms "sympathetic" and "resonance" are not synonymous.

Well, I don't know what "sympathetic resonance" means; I'm only a
physicist. I know about "sympathetic vibration" and I know about
"resonance", but I don't know about "sympathetic resonance".

- Rich Holmes

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Rich Holmes<rsholmes@m...> wrote:
> "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...> writes:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Rich Holmes<rsholmes@m...> wrote:
> > > "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...> writes:
> > >
> > > > I'd really like to know how anyone could create a sympathetic
> > > > resonance in a Boehm flute.
> > >
> > > You can't play a Boehm flute, or any other wind instrument,
without
> > > making use of resonances. Well, you could use it as a drum
stick, I
> > > suppose.
> > >
> > > - Rich Holmes
> >
> >
> > The terms "sympathetic" and "resonance" are not synonymous.
>
> Well, I don't know what "sympathetic resonance" means; I'm only a
> physicist. I know about "sympathetic vibration" and I know about
> "resonance", but I don't know about "sympathetic resonance".
>
> - Rich Holmes

In the original thread -- if you trace it back -- the
term "sympathetic resonance" was not my own. However, you are
absolute right about the distinction between "sympathetic vibration"
and "resonance." Thank you.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Rich Holmes<rsholmes@m...> wrote:
> > "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...> writes:
> >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Rich Holmes<rsholmes@m...> wrote:
> > > > "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@c...> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I'd really like to know how anyone could create a
sympathetic
> > > > > resonance in a Boehm flute.
> > > >
> > > > You can't play a Boehm flute, or any other wind instrument,
> without
> > > > making use of resonances. Well, you could use it as a drum
> stick, I
> > > > suppose.
> > > >
> > > > - Rich Holmes
> > >
> > >
> > > The terms "sympathetic" and "resonance" are not synonymous.
> >
> > Well, I don't know what "sympathetic resonance" means; I'm only a
> > physicist. I know about "sympathetic vibration" and I know about
> > "resonance", but I don't know about "sympathetic resonance".
> >
> > - Rich Holmes
>
>
> In the original thread -- if you trace it back -- the
> term "sympathetic resonance" was not my own.

I traced it back and it appears that you were indeed the one who
introduced it, Cris. If not you, then who?

> I'm also trained as a physicist and I agree with Rich.

> However, you are
> absolute right about the distinction between "sympathetic
vibration"
> and "resonance." Thank you.

I erroneously thought you had been referring to sympathetic
vibration, Cris, since it's so important on many multi-stringed
instruments. but I did use the term "sympathetic vibration" and
not "sympathetic resonance".

You mean quarter-tone sharps and flats? It is interesting that the three fifths I mentioned earlier are very close to 79 MOS 159-tET fifths. A 19-tone framework seems pretty simple, and compatible with the perde-system.
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 3:48
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

0: C
8: C#
16: Db
24: D
32: D#
40: Eb
48: E
56: E#=Fb
64: F
72: F#
80: Gb
88: G
96: G#
104: Ab
112: A
120: A#
128: Bb
136: B
144: B#=Cb
152: c

These are 8 degrees apart. So we need a few additional symbols to
inflect any of those by up to 4 degrees either upward or downward.
Then we can notate all the notes of 152-equal.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> You mean quarter-tone sharps and flats?

No, there's nothing of the sort here. Although you could make
nonstandard use of existing symbols for those somewhere in here if
you wanted to, I guess.

> A 19-tone framework seems pretty simple,

It sure is -- I hear Neil Haverstick has a book on it for beginners.

> and compatible with the perde-system.

Glad to hear it.

Also one can use 31-equal as a notated "spine" for 217-equal in a
similar way, and a lot of people here have independently come to 217-
equal for various purposes.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarþamba 3:48
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
>
> 0: C
> 8: C#
> 16: Db
> 24: D
> 32: D#
> 40: Eb
> 48: E
> 56: E#=Fb
> 64: F
> 72: F#
> 80: Gb
> 88: G
> 96: G#
> 104: Ab
> 112: A
> 120: A#
> 128: Bb
> 136: B
> 144: B#=Cb
> 152: c
>
> These are 8 degrees apart. So we need a few additional symbols to
> inflect any of those by up to 4 degrees either upward or
downward.
> Then we can notate all the notes of 152-equal.

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

> Also one can use 31-equal as a notated "spine" for 217-equal in a
> similar way, and a lot of people here have independently come to 217-
> equal for various purposes.

One way is simply from the search for good high limit systems; if you
think the 35-limit consonances are cool, you might like it.

Paul,
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 07 Ekim 2005 Cuma 2:46
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> You mean quarter-tone sharps and flats?

No, there's nothing of the sort here. Although you could make
nonstandard use of existing symbols for those somewhere in here if
you wanted to, I guess.

So, in effect, I may constrain 152-EQ in a 24-tET notational framework?

Also one can use 31-equal as a notated "spine" for 217-equal in a
similar way, and a lot of people here have independently come to 217-equal for various purposes.

Spine? Can you elaborate on that? But I guess, 217 is important because it is 7 times 31, 301 is important because it is 7 times 43.

Cordially,
Ozan

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

>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> > A 19-tone framework seems pretty simple,
>
> It sure is -- I hear Neil Haverstick has a book on it
> for beginners.

The fundamental point about 19-edo's simplicity in Haverstick's
book -- which i assume he got from Ivor Darreg because Ivor
wrote exactly the same thing earlier -- is that you can read
nearly all of the existing published music and play it in 19-edo,
the only difference from 12-edo being that you play different
notes for the flats and sharps in 19-edo, and the audible result
will be quite different from what you get in 12-edo.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

> > > A 19-tone framework seems pretty simple,
> >
> > It sure is -- I hear Neil Haverstick has a book on it
> > for beginners.
>
> The fundamental point about 19-edo's simplicity in Haverstick's
> book -- which i assume he got from Ivor Darreg because Ivor
> wrote exactly the same thing earlier -- is that you can read
> nearly all of the existing published music and play it in 19-edo,
> the only difference from 12-edo being that you play different
> notes for the flats and sharps in 19-edo, and the audible result
> will be quite different from what you get in 12-edo.

I don't know about "nearly all"... as Paul points out, since
12 has a different set of commas in its kernal than does 19,
this scheme will run afoul of comma drift for much music,
especially post 1850.

-Carl

"Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com> writes:

> > The fundamental point about 19-edo's simplicity in Haverstick's
> > book -- which i assume he got from Ivor Darreg because Ivor
> > wrote exactly the same thing earlier -- is that you can read
> > nearly all of the existing published music and play it in 19-edo,
> > the only difference from 12-edo being that you play different
> > notes for the flats and sharps in 19-edo, and the audible result
> > will be quite different from what you get in 12-edo.
>
> I don't know about "nearly all"... as Paul points out, since
> 12 has a different set of commas in its kernal than does 19,
> this scheme will run afoul of comma drift for much music,
> especially post 1850.

He said you can play it; he didn't say it'd sound right! Comma drift
would be one example of how "the audible result will be quite
different", I should think.

Then again, the same could be said for any temperament generated by
something like a fifth and something like an octave, couldn't it? You
can always map conventional note names onto the resulting circle (or
spiral) of "fifths", hence play anything notated in conventional
notation -- whether you can *listen* to it is another question!

- Rich Holmes

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I don't know about "nearly all"... as Paul points out, since
> 12 has a different set of commas in its kernal than does 19,
> this scheme will run afoul of comma drift for much music,
> especially post 1850.

I think Paul exaggerates how often this becomes a real difficulty, and
this is experience speaking. Rescoring nineteenth century music to a
reasonable meantone verion seems possible most of the time. On the
other hand sometimes real difficulties do arise.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know about "nearly all"... as Paul points out, since
> > 12 has a different set of commas in its kernal than does 19,
> > this scheme will run afoul of comma drift for much music,
> > especially post 1850.
>
> I think Paul exaggerates how often this becomes a real
> difficulty, and this is experience speaking. Rescoring
> nineteenth century music to a reasonable meantone verion
> seems possible most of the time. On the other hand sometimes
> real difficulties do arise.
>

I agree more with Gene: the real difficulty would come in
not post-1850, but post-1908 -- the year Schoenberg invented
atonality.

So OK, by "nearly all" what i really meant was "all diatonic
music", because even now in 2005 new music that's out that
is diatonic still sounds great when retuned in 19-edo.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 07 Ekim 2005 Cuma 2:46
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> > You mean quarter-tone sharps and flats?
>
> No, there's nothing of the sort here. Although you could make
> nonstandard use of existing symbols for those somewhere in here if
> you wanted to, I guess.
>
>
>
> So, in effect, I may constrain 152-EQ in a 24-tET notational framework?

No, I don't see how or why you would do that.

> Also one can use 31-equal as a notated "spine" for 217-equal in a
> similar way, and a lot of people here have independently come to 217-equal for
various purposes.
>
>
>
> Spine? Can you elaborate on that?

The original proposal here was to notate 152-equal by first notating 19-equal in the
conventional way using sharps and flats, and then introduce additional accidentals
indicating 1-4 degrees of 152-equal alteration up or down from the 19-equal spine. For
217-equal, you'd use a 31-equal spine (which would require double sharps and double
flats, or something equivalent, to notate) along with accidentals indicating 1-3 degrees of
217-equal alteration up or down from the spine. Both 19-equal and 31-equal are
meantone tunings . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > > > A 19-tone framework seems pretty simple,
> > >
> > > It sure is -- I hear Neil Haverstick has a book on it
> > > for beginners.
> >
> > The fundamental point about 19-edo's simplicity in Haverstick's
> > book -- which i assume he got from Ivor Darreg because Ivor
> > wrote exactly the same thing earlier -- is that you can read
> > nearly all of the existing published music and play it in 19-edo,
> > the only difference from 12-edo being that you play different
> > notes for the flats and sharps in 19-edo, and the audible result
> > will be quite different from what you get in 12-edo.
>
> I don't know about "nearly all"... as Paul points out, since
> 12 has a different set of commas in its kernal

Kernel

> than does 19,

Right, or because 12 has a different set of enharmonic equivalences than 19,

> this scheme will run afoul of comma drift for much music,
> especially post 1850.

I would say especially post 1780 or so . . . Much Beethoven and Schubert, for instance.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know about "nearly all"... as Paul points out, since
> > 12 has a different set of commas in its kernal than does 19,
> > this scheme will run afoul of comma drift for much music,
> > especially post 1850.
>
> I think Paul exaggerates how often this becomes a real difficulty, and
> this is experience speaking. Rescoring nineteenth century music to a
> reasonable meantone verion seems possible most of the time. On the
> other hand sometimes real difficulties do arise.

Perhaps I'm biased in that much of my favorite Schubert falls into the "real difficulties"
category.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know about "nearly all"... as Paul points out, since
> > > 12 has a different set of commas in its kernal than does 19,
> > > this scheme will run afoul of comma drift for much music,
> > > especially post 1850.
> >
> > I think Paul exaggerates how often this becomes a real
> > difficulty, and this is experience speaking. Rescoring
> > nineteenth century music to a reasonable meantone verion
> > seems possible most of the time. On the other hand sometimes
> > real difficulties do arise.
> >
>
>
> I agree more with Gene: the real difficulty would come in
> not post-1850, but post-1908 -- the year Schoenberg invented
> atonality.

I completely disagree, Monz! Beethoven and Schubert provide a number of great examples
of this, that were still perfectly within the realm of tonality, and enharmonic equivalence
was quite the assumed norm for well over a hundred years before 1908!!

Monz, did you even read the paper about enharmonics and neo-Riemannian analysis you
provided a link for a while back? Or Mathieu's _Harmonic Experience_?

Paul,
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 12 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 23:26
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)

>
> So, in effect, I may constrain 152-EQ in a 24-tET notational framework?

No, I don't see how or why you would do that.

What? Might I not use the quarter-tone accidentals in an elegant and dynamic manner for the job? I don't see why I cannot.

> Also one can use 31-equal as a notated "spine" for 217-equal in a
> similar way, and a lot of people here have independently come to 217-equal for
various purposes.
>
>
>
> Spine? Can you elaborate on that?

The original proposal here was to notate 152-equal by first notating 19-equal in the
conventional way using sharps and flats, and then introduce additional accidentals
indicating 1-4 degrees of 152-equal alteration up or down from the 19-equal spine. For
217-equal, you'd use a 31-equal spine (which would require double sharps and double
flats, or something equivalent, to notate) along with accidentals indicating 1-3 degrees of
217-equal alteration up or down from the spine. Both 19-equal and 31-equal are
meantone tunings . . .

Fine, but tell me this: what the heck is a spine? Is it the lowest prime number once a high cardinality ET's sum total of pitches is factorized?

Cordially,
Ozan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 12 Ekim 2005 Çarþamba 23:26
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-
equal?)
>
> >
> > So, in effect, I may constrain 152-EQ in a 24-tET notational
framework?
>
> No, I don't see how or why you would do that.
>
>
>
> What? Might I not use the quarter-tone accidentals in an elegant
>and dynamic manner for the job? I don't see why I cannot.

I must be misunderstanding what you mean, then. Show me how you
intend to notate 152-equal using quarter-tone accidentals, and then
I'll tell you what I think.

> > Also one can use 31-equal as a notated "spine" for 217-equal
in a
> > similar way, and a lot of people here have independently come
to 217-equal for
> various purposes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Spine? Can you elaborate on that?
>
> The original proposal here was to notate 152-equal by first
notating 19-equal in the
> conventional way using sharps and flats, and then introduce
additional accidentals
> indicating 1-4 degrees of 152-equal alteration up or down from
the 19-equal spine. For
> 217-equal, you'd use a 31-equal spine (which would require double
sharps and double
> flats, or something equivalent, to notate) along with accidentals
indicating 1-3 degrees of
> 217-equal alteration up or down from the spine. Both 19-equal and
31-equal are
> meantone tunings . . .
>
>
>
>
>
> Fine, but tell me this: what the heck is a spine? Is it the lowest
>prime number once a high cardinality ET's sum total of pitches is
>factorized?

I just meant "spine" as a metaphor for this particular case (and I'm
pretty sure someone else brought it up here in this thread before
me), not as a general term. The idea, though, is that 19 (certainly
not the lowest prime factor of 152) can be notated conventionally,
and since the rest of 152-equal consists of equal divisions of the 19
steps into 8 parts each, one then only needs symbols for sharpening
or flattening by 1-4 parts, and one can then notate all of 152-equal.
There's a 19-equal "spine" in that that's the conventionally-notated
subset of 152-equal from which the rest of 152-equal can be derived
by application of the 1-4 parts sharpening or flattening to each of
the notes in the 19-equal "spine". Hence, one instance of 19-equal
forms the notational "spine", being in the center, while the rest of
the tuning is "fleshed out" via the small, 1-4 parts sharpening or
flattening relative to that central "spine".

Paul, the following should be the default diatonic major scale out of 152-equal:

0: 1/1 C unison, perfect prime
1: 197.368 cents D
2: 386.842 cents E
3: 497.368 cents F
4: 702.632 cents G
5: 892.105 cents A
6: 1089.474 cents B
7: 2/1 C octave

The step numbers are: 0, 25, 49, 63, 89, 113, 138 and 152 respectively.

The cycle could be made to close through the flattened notes which would become enharmonically equivalent to the sharps:

0: 1/1 C unison, perfect prime
1: 86.842 cents C#\< Db
2: 197.368 cents D<
3: 292.105 cents D#\< Eb
4: 386.842 cents E\
5: 497.368 cents F
6: 584.211 cents F#\< Gb
7: 702.632 cents G
8: 789.474 cents G#\< Ab
9: 892.105 cents Av
10: 994.737 cents A#\< Bb
11: 1089.474 cents B\
12: 2/1 C octave

(The notation here is E152 from Scala)

Here is the cycle of fifths:

0: 0.000 cents 0.000 0 0 commas C
7: 702.632 cents 0.677 21 G
2: 694.737 cents -6.542 -201 D<
9: 694.737 cents -13.760 -422 Av
4: 694.737 cents -20.978 -644 E\
11: 702.632 cents -20.301 -623 B\
6: 694.737 cents -27.519 -845 Gb
1: 702.632 cents -26.843 -824 Db
8: 702.632 cents -26.166 -803 Ab
3: 702.632 cents -25.490 -782 Eb
10: 702.632 cents -24.813 -762 Bb
5: 702.632 cents -24.137 -741 F
12: 702.632 cents -23.460 -720 -Pythagorean comma, ditonic co C
Average absolute difference: 20.0571 cents
Root mean square difference: 22.6549 cents
Maximum absolute difference: 27.5195 cents
Maximum formal fifth difference: 7.2182 cents

I accept this to be the default chromatic 12-tone scale, whereby small deviations via narrower or wider fifths at a particular degree could lead to other directions. But I digress, the regular 12-tone accidentals could be considered sufficient at this point.

For significant deviations from the chromatic framework delineated above, quarter-tone accidentals should be employed. Thus, all the degrees between C and Db unreachable via a cycle of fifths would require a single quarter-tone sharp or a sesqui-tone flat. For greater precision, step numbers could be inscribed with the notes. What do you think?

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 15 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 0:10
Subject: [tuning] Re: Why the need for ET? (was: why not 1071-equal?)
>
>
> What? Might I not use the quarter-tone accidentals in an elegant
>and dynamic manner for the job? I don't see why I cannot.

I must be misunderstanding what you mean, then. Show me how you
intend to notate 152-equal using quarter-tone accidentals, and then
I'll tell you what I think.

> > Also one can use 31-equal as a notated "spine" for 217-equal
in a
> > similar way, and a lot of people here have independently come
to 217-equal for
> various purposes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Spine? Can you elaborate on that?
>
> The original proposal here was to notate 152-equal by first
notating 19-equal in the
> conventional way using sharps and flats, and then introduce
additional accidentals
> indicating 1-4 degrees of 152-equal alteration up or down from
the 19-equal spine. For
> 217-equal, you'd use a 31-equal spine (which would require double
sharps and double
> flats, or something equivalent, to notate) along with accidentals
indicating 1-3 degrees of
> 217-equal alteration up or down from the spine. Both 19-equal and
31-equal are
> meantone tunings . . .
>
>
>
>
>
> Fine, but tell me this: what the heck is a spine? Is it the lowest
>prime number once a high cardinality ET's sum total of pitches is
>factorized?

I just meant "spine" as a metaphor for this particular case (and I'm
pretty sure someone else brought it up here in this thread before
me), not as a general term. The idea, though, is that 19 (certainly
not the lowest prime factor of 152) can be notated conventionally,
and since the rest of 152-equal consists of equal divisions of the 19
steps into 8 parts each, one then only needs symbols for sharpening
or flattening by 1-4 parts, and one can then notate all of 152-equal.
There's a 19-equal "spine" in that that's the conventionally-notated
subset of 152-equal from which the rest of 152-equal can be derived
by application of the 1-4 parts sharpening or flattening to each of
the notes in the 19-equal "spine". Hence, one instance of 19-equal
forms the notational "spine", being in the center, while the rest of
the tuning is "fleshed out" via the small, 1-4 parts sharpening or
flattening relative to that central "spine".

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> Paul, the following should be the default diatonic major scale out
>of 152-equal:

[...]

Dear Ozan,

I don't agree with this proposal, particularly (where I feel somewhat
qualified to speak) as regards any Western application. Again, 19-
equal would form a conventionally-notated subset of 152-equal in my
proposal. I typed a long explanation of my disagreement and it
disappeared into the great void of the Web. But it was pretty much a
rehash of what George Secor, myself, and others have said in the past
about notating microtonal systems using conventional notation as a
starting point.

The last few posts of yours that I replied to seem to show a
troubling amount of miscommunication between us, and I don't want
that to escalate into any kind of negative feelings or flame wars. I
don't wish to create any further misunderstanding between us,
particularly in public, so perhaps anything further on this should go
off-line for a while before we move it back into the public sphere.
Alternatively, you can just ignore my banterings; just know that I
hold the music you're interested in in the very highest regard and
wish you all the luck in the world in your valuable endeavors.

Love,
Paul