Sims Wikipedia article

In the Wikipedia article on Ezra Sims there is the following quote:

"I seem finally to have identified and made transcribable what my ear
was after all along: a set of pitches ordered in an asymmetrical scale
of 18 (or 19) notes, some of them acoustically more important than
others, transposable through a chromatic of 72 pitches in the octave."
(1978)."

However, the only Sims-labeled scales in the Scala archive seem to
have little to do with 72-et. In particular, the scale called
sims.scl, of 18 31-limit notes, is one that Scala suggests could be
approximated by a number of divsions, including 53, 84, 87, 103, 118,
130, 140, 224, 270, 311, 441, 494, and 612, but not 72. Does anyone
know what scale Sims is talking about here?

Hi Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> In the Wikipedia article on Ezra Sims there is the following quote:
>
> "I seem finally to have identified and made transcribable
> what my ear was after all along: a set of pitches ordered
> in an asymmetrical scale of 18 (or 19) notes, some of them
> acoustically more important than others, transposable
> through a chromatic of 72 pitches in the octave."
> (1978)."
>
> However, the only Sims-labeled scales in the Scala archive
> seem to have little to do with 72-et. In particular, the
> scale called sims.scl, of 18 31-limit notes, is one that
> Scala suggests could be approximated by a number of divsions,
> including 53, 84, 87, 103, 118, 130, 140, 224, 270, 311,
> 441, 494, and 612, but not 72. Does anyone know what
> scale Sims is talking about here?

I wrote about it here twice before:

/tuning/topicId_22968.html#23086

and a correction to that message:
/tuning/topicId_22968.html#23096

and:

/tuning/topicId_39476.html#39478

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gene,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > In the Wikipedia article on Ezra Sims there is the following
quote:
> >
> > "I seem finally to have identified and made transcribable
> > what my ear was after all along: a set of pitches ordered
> > in an asymmetrical scale of 18 (or 19) notes, some of them
> > acoustically more important than others, transposable
> > through a chromatic of 72 pitches in the octave."
> > (1978)."
> >
> > However, the only Sims-labeled scales in the Scala archive
> > seem to have little to do with 72-et. In particular, the
> > scale called sims.scl, of 18 31-limit notes, is one that
> > Scala suggests could be approximated by a number of divsions,
> > including 53, 84, 87, 103, 118, 130, 140, 224, 270, 311,
> > 441, 494, and 612, but not 72. Does anyone know what
> > scale Sims is talking about here?
>
>
>
> I wrote about it here twice before:
>
>
> /tuning/topicId_22968.html#23086
>
> and a correction to that message:
> /tuning/topicId_22968.html#23096
>
>
> and:
>
> /tuning/topicId_39476.html#39478
>
>
>
>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com
> Tonescape microtonal music software

Thanks Monz. Gene, you may be interested to know that Ezra was not
aware of the inconsistencies of 72-equal beyond the 17-limit until I
pointed them out to him. In 72-equal, the best approximation of 8:13
plus the best approximation of 13:17 does not equal the best
approximation of 8:17. Many intervals in a 31-limit scale would
therefore have to be represented by something other than their best
approximations in 72-equal. Maybe this is why you (or Scala?) didn't
find 72-equal among the candidates for an approximation to this
scale . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gene,
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > In the Wikipedia article on Ezra Sims there is the following
> quote:
> > >
> > > "I seem finally to have identified and made transcribable
> > > what my ear was after all along: a set of pitches ordered
> > > in an asymmetrical scale of 18 (or 19) notes, some of them
> > > acoustically more important than others, transposable
> > > through a chromatic of 72 pitches in the octave."
> > > (1978)."
> > >
> > > However, the only Sims-labeled scales in the Scala archive
> > > seem to have little to do with 72-et. In particular, the
> > > scale called sims.scl, of 18 31-limit notes, is one that
> > > Scala suggests could be approximated by a number of divsions,
> > > including 53, 84, 87, 103, 118, 130, 140, 224, 270, 311,
> > > 441, 494, and 612, but not 72. Does anyone know what
> > > scale Sims is talking about here?
> >
> >
> >
> > I wrote about it here twice before:
> >
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_22968.html#23086
> >
> > and a correction to that message:
> > /tuning/topicId_22968.html#23096
> >
> >
> > and:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_39476.html#39478
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -monz
> > http://tonalsoft.com
> > Tonescape microtonal music software
>
> Thanks Monz. Gene, you may be interested to know that Ezra was not
> aware of the inconsistencies of 72-equal beyond the 17-limit until
I
> pointed them out to him. In 72-equal, the best approximation of
8:13
> plus the best approximation of 13:17

Sorry -- that should have been 13:19.

> does not equal the best
> approximation of 8:17.

And that, 8:19.

My apologies for the error.

> Many intervals in a 31-limit scale would
> therefore have to be represented by something other than their best
> approximations in 72-equal. Maybe this is why you (or Scala?)
didn't
> find 72-equal among the candidates for an approximation to this
> scale . . .
>

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

> Thanks Monz. Gene, you may be interested to know that Ezra was not
> aware of the inconsistencies of 72-equal beyond the 17-limit until I
> pointed them out to him.

The first standard val consistent up to the 31-limit is 311; 72 is far
too small to accomodate a tonality diamond with 213 tones, of course.

In 72-equal, the best approximation of 8:13
> plus the best approximation of 13:17 does not equal the best
> approximation of 8:17. Many intervals in a 31-limit scale would
> therefore have to be represented by something other than their best
> approximations in 72-equal. Maybe this is why you (or Scala?) didn't
> find 72-equal among the candidates for an approximation to this
> scale . . .

No, Scala simply does some sort of fitting--RMS or minimax, I presume.
Manuel might supply the details if he reads this.

It would be interesting to know how Sims got to 72 from his starting
point, because the logic escapes me.

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

> It would be interesting to know how Sims got to 72 from his starting
> point, because the logic escapes me.

I don't think he got to 72 purely or even primarily by using his 18-
tone JI scale as a starting point. Rather, I suspect that he simply
found that it approximates the lower harmonics and their intervals
quite well. He cites approximations to the first 39 or 64 harmonics,
which you can attack as illogical bases for 72-equal too, but give the
guy some slack -- surely the lower primes were more important and
immediate to him then the higher ones, especially as regards accurate
tuning.