Fw: [tuning] Confusing "dim-6ths" with Re: Wide 5ths

"It" should have been G#-Eb.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 22 Haziran 2007 Cuma 16:41
Subject: Re: [tuning] Confusing "dim-6ths" with Re: Wide 5ths

> Andreas is right, for G-Eb truly IS a diminished sixth and thus G#-Eb
> becomes double diminished. But G-Eb could be considered a minor sixth
> instead in its own right, in which case Brad is correct to say that it is
a
> diminished sixth.
>
> So end this meaningless feud already.
>
> Oz.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 22 Haziran 2007 Cuma 15:08
> Subject: [tuning] Confusing "dim-6ths" with Re: Wide 5ths
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com "Brad Lehman" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eb-Bb-F-C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#, our diminished 6th is that G# to Eb
> > > > non-5th resulting. We have a raised G (sharpened) and a lowered E
> > > > (flattened): that's a
> > DOUBLE-diminshed, because you have to count at first the one sharp
> > "#"-symbol and then additional another "b"-symbol too,
> > hence you obtain a TWICE-diminsihed sixt (=enharmonic 5th)
> > instead yours hypothesis of a barely SINGLE dimished-6th.
> >
> > >> 6th because it's *some* G and *some* E taken
> > > > together;
> > add both that 2 accidentials all together,
> > the resulting interval is enharmonic equivalent in seize to
> > (G#-Eb)=(C-Abb)=(C-G) but defintively not
> > an SINGLE "dim-6th":(G#-E)=(G-Eb)=(C-Ab)=(C-G#)
> > located an semitone higher.
> >
> > Is it really so diffcult to admit that
> > you simply forgot to count the second accidential shift downwards
> > from barely SINGLE to DOUBLE accidential down-alterrated?
> >
> > >> and it's diminished because we've brought
> > emphsis on
> > > both
> > "BOTH" means here twice or double
> > > notes inward
> > > > by a semitone. It's a semitone smaller than whatever minor 6th
>>the
> > > > temperament happens to have.
> >
> > Ok,
> > one can explain the one "b"-accidential down
> > accordingly by the term "minor":
> >
> > resulting in:
> > "minor-dim.-6th" = "double-dim.-6th"
> >
> > Then you sould replace the ambigous (major or minor?)
> > "dim.-6th" in that inprecise terminology more exactly
> > by "minor-dim.-6th" in order to prevent further confusion.
> >
> > A.S.
> >
>