96:95

Hi,

since I'm interested in "reinforcing minor" as opposed to "minor on the 6th degree of major", I'm interested in the 96:95-comma. What's the name of the appropriate temperament family?

klaus

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Klaus Schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> since I'm interested in "reinforcing minor" as opposed to "minor on
the
> 6th degree of major", I'm interested in the 96:95-comma. What's the
name
> of the appropriate temperament family?

No one has given names, or as far as I know even any thought, to 19-
limit codimension one temperaments. However, 67-et is an excellent
tuning for it, and you could certainly adopt a meantone point of view
on it. From this point of view, it would be part of the 55&67 version
of 19-limit meantone, with C-Eb for a 19/16, and C-Db for a 17/16,
which makes them of low complexity.

Gene Ward Smith schrieb:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Klaus Schmirler <KSchmir@...> wrote:
> >> Hi,
>>
>> since I'm interested in "reinforcing minor" as opposed to "minor on >> > the > >> 6th degree of major", I'm interested in the 96:95-comma. What's the >> > name > >> of the appropriate temperament family?
>> >
> No one has given names, or as far as I know even any thought, to 19-
> limit codimension one temperaments. However, 67-et is an excellent > tuning for it, and you could certainly adopt a meantone point of view > on it. From this point of view, it would be part of the 55&67 version > of 19-limit meantone, with C-Eb for a 19/16, and C-Db for a 17/16, > which makes them of low complexity.
> Thank you. That's how far I got, so I'm on the right track. Wasn't this the tuning Ozan didn't want? I'll take it.

My mind returns a blank when I try to imagine an open, linear tuning because there is only one fifth involved. The JI end of the matter consists in stacking up 19/16s and 5/4, maybe until a decent fifth turns up. Is there no alternative? The obvious way of equating the minor third results in the ridiculously small comma of 513:512, and I guess one might as well stick to Pythagorean there.

klaus

SNIP

> >
> > No one has given names, or as far as I know even any thought, to 19-
> > limit codimension one temperaments. However, 67-et is an excellent
> > tuning for it, and you could certainly adopt a meantone point of view
> > on it. From this point of view, it would be part of the 55&67 version
> > of 19-limit meantone, with C-Eb for a 19/16, and C-Db for a 17/16,
> > which makes them of low complexity.
> >
> Thank you. That's how far I got, so I'm on the right track. Wasn't this
> the tuning Ozan didn't want? I'll take it.
>

SNIP

Remind me, where did I say I didn't want it?

Oz.

Ozan Yarman schrieb:
> SNIP
>
> >>> No one has given names, or as far as I know even any thought, to 19-
>>> limit codimension one temperaments. However, 67-et is an excellent >>> tuning for it, and you could certainly adopt a meantone point of view >>> on it. From this point of view, it would be part of the 55&67 version >>> of 19-limit meantone, with C-Eb for a 19/16, and C-Db for a 17/16, >>> which makes them of low complexity.
>>> >>> >> Thank you. That's how far I got, so I'm on the right track. Wasn't this >> the tuning Ozan didn't want? I'll take it.
>>
>> >
> SNIP
>
> Remind me, where did I say I didn't want it?
>
> Oz.
>
> Weren't you dissatisfied with 67? Or 97? or 79? Anyway, I want 67 (I think).

Is Sami Cicilli a known entity in Turkey? He may be a bit young for that, but he plays the kanoun like ... well, as if he could.

klaus

SNIP

> >
> > Remind me, where did I say I didn't want it?
> >
> > Oz.
> >
> >
> Weren't you dissatisfied with 67? Or 97? or 79? Anyway, I want 67 (I
think).
>
> Is Sami Cicilli a known entity in Turkey? He may be a bit young for
> that, but he plays the kanoun like ... well, as if he could.
>
> klaus
>
>

I am dissatisfied with a lot of things, but 67MOS200-tET, 67MOS135-tET, and
79MOS159-tET are not among them. ;)

Sami who? I do not know of him I'm afraid...

Oz.

> I am dissatisfied with a lot of things, but 67MOS200-tET,
> 67MOS135-tET, and 79MOS159-tET are not among them. ;)

What about 67 equal?

-Carl

What about it?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 14 Ocak 2007 Pazar 22:34
Subject: [tuning] Re: 96:95

> > I am dissatisfied with a lot of things, but 67MOS200-tET,
> > 67MOS135-tET, and 79MOS159-tET are not among them. ;)
>
> What about 67 equal?
>
> -Carl
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> What about it?

Is it good for anything you're interested in?

-Carl

Nope, it is a horrible thing to behold.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 15 Ocak 2007 Pazartesi 5:21
Subject: [tuning] Re: 96:95

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > What about it?
>
> Is it good for anything you're interested in?
>
> -Carl
>
>

Ozan Yarman schrieb:
> SNIP
> >>> No one has given names, or as far as I know even any thought, to 19-
>>> limit codimension one temperaments. However, 67-et is an excellent >>> tuning for it, and you could certainly adopt a meantone point of view >>> on it. From this point of view, it would be part of the 55&67 version >>> of 19-limit meantone, with C-Eb for a 19/16, and C-Db for a 17/16, >>> which makes them of low complexity.
>>> >> Thank you. That's how far I got, so I'm on the right track. Wasn't this >> the tuning Ozan didn't want? I'll take it.
>>
> > SNIP
> > Remind me, where did I say I didn't want it?
> On June 11, 2005:

"But dear George, the issue is not a crude approximation when it comes to affixing the mandals of a Qanun. I assure you, 43tET cannot hope to suffice any more than 41. 55 or 67 don't cut it either."

I'd still want something smaller with the same space between the thirds, but ~ 5 cent lower. Doesn't have to be circulating.

klaus

Why don't you try 79/80 MOS 159-tET?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Klaus Schmirler" <KSchmir@online.de>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 16 Ocak 2007 Sal� 2:32
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: 96:95

> Ozan Yarman schrieb:
> > SNIP
> >
> >>> No one has given names, or as far as I know even any thought, to 19-
> >>> limit codimension one temperaments. However, 67-et is an excellent
> >>> tuning for it, and you could certainly adopt a meantone point of view
> >>> on it. From this point of view, it would be part of the 55&67 version
> >>> of 19-limit meantone, with C-Eb for a 19/16, and C-Db for a 17/16,
> >>> which makes them of low complexity.
> >>>
> >> Thank you. That's how far I got, so I'm on the right track. Wasn't
this
> >> the tuning Ozan didn't want? I'll take it.
> >>
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > Remind me, where did I say I didn't want it?
> >
>
> On June 11, 2005:
>
> "But dear George, the issue is not a crude approximation when it comes
> to affixing the mandals of a Qanun. I assure you, 43tET cannot hope to
> suffice any more than 41. 55 or 67 don't cut it either."
>
>
> I'd still want something smaller with the same space between the
> thirds, but ~ 5 cent lower. Doesn't have to be circulating.
>
> klaus
>
>

Ozan Yarman schrieb:
> Why don't you try 79/80 MOS 159-tET?

Because I want to learn it on the trombone, and the unresolved comma doesn't help there. I need a relatively small number of uniform steps between intervals of the harmonic series for a start and have to extrapolate to the rest of the octave from there. 67 is already large enough to make it likely that I count wrong, in addition to playing wrong. But since nobody needs me to play in 67 by a deadline, I can spend the rest of my live learning it. (If I should ever be able and allowed to use it in an ensemble situation, I can probably rely on physics and the weakness of my embouchure to pull the thirds down.)

klaus