Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Golden Ratio Scale mp3 example

Hi Max,

> Sorry, I have a curiosity... nothing against using the golden
> ratio, other irrationals like greek Pi, Neper's number... etc.
> but: what should it be the peculiarity of using Phi (and also,
> defining it as the octave)? I mean, with respect to other
> irrationals, or even to any other number?

An excellent question. I can't speak for Michael. The
golden ratio has been proposed for use in tunings many
times, in different ways, most of them dubious in my
opinion. One of the most considered attempts was undertaken
here by Dave Keenan, Margo Schulter, and others in the
earlier part of this decade, under the rubric of "metastable
intervals" or "metastable scales". They suggested that
phi and other noble numbers

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NobleNumber.html

would be points of maximum ambiguity. They would be hard
to associate with any one simple ratio, and scales containing
such intervals would therefore have a unique sound. It
may be what Michael is hearing. You can read more at:

http://dkeenan.com/music/noblemediant.txt

(However, it seems to me that just using the harmonic entropy
maxima would be a better approach.)

> Yhe same curiosity arosen when considering the tuning of
> Prof. Lucy (that uses greek Pi in the exponential:
> 2^(1/2 greek Pi) to define the large tone in that case, very
> close - but opposed - to 2^(1/6) of 12-TET)

First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.

-Carl

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

> Sorry, I have a curiosity... nothing against using the golden

> ratio, other irrationals like greek Pi, Neper's number... etc.

> but: what should it be the peculiarity of using Phi (and also,

> defining it as the octave)? I mean, with respect to other

> irrationals, or even to any other number?

The reasons I decided to try "messing" with it...are as follows

A) Many other scales try to preserve the octave accurately first and a circle of tones (in the case of 12TET, fifths) second.
Which begs the question "can I make a scale out of a ratio that can wrap around itself both as a 'circle' like the circle of fifths and act as an 'octave' thus optimizing both cases?" PHI seems to solve that demand, at least mathematically, IF you use PHI as both the octave and the generator of the scale.

B) Simply by ear I tried several irrational ratios as generators and, of course, combinations of harmonic series and split harmonic series. Far as both ability to make melodies and chords, nothing came close to the scales I was able to generate from the 13-tone PHI tuning far as listen-ability. I was forced to let my ego go (on creating my own tunings) and give up my old tunings and use the pre-existing PHI tuning as my favorite basis for creating new scales.

C) We seem to have endless discussions here about adaptive JI and what terrible things happen when you switch keys using standard JI and ratios (relative to the new base note) of the scale go out of tune. Since PHI is "infinitely symmetrical" about itself, it avoids the problem entirely. Thus transpositions of my scale (or any scale) along the PHI tuning sound just as good in any key...without any sort of adaptive tuning being needed.
************************

So, as to why I chose PHI, it was a combination of numeric convenience as the fact my ears were strongly gravitating toward the results from the PHI tuning vs. tunings I had made from scratch. Now I am convinced, PHI can be a better generator for a tuning than JI harmonics or virtually any sort of pythagorean model...at least to my ears.

-Michael

--- On Wed, 2/11/09, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Golden Ratio Scale mp3 example
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 10:27 AM

Hi Max,

> Sorry, I have a curiosity... nothing against using the golden

> ratio, other irrationals like greek Pi, Neper's number... etc.

> but: what should it be the peculiarity of using Phi (and also,

> defining it as the octave)? I mean, with respect to other

> irrationals, or even to any other number?

An excellent question. I can't speak for Michael. The

golden ratio has been proposed for use in tunings many

times, in different ways, most of them dubious in my

opinion. One of the most considered attempts was undertaken

here by Dave Keenan, Margo Schulter, and others in the

earlier part of this decade, under the rubric of "metastable

intervals" or "metastable scales". They suggested that

phi and other noble numbers

http://mathworld. wolfram.com/ NobleNumber. html

would be points of maximum ambiguity. They would be hard

to associate with any one simple ratio, and scales containing

such intervals would therefore have a unique sound. It

may be what Michael is hearing. You can read more at:

http://users. bigpond.net. au/d.keenan/ music/noblemedia nt.txt

(However, it seems to me that just using the harmonic entropy

maxima would be a better approach.)

> Yhe same curiosity arosen when considering the tuning of

> Prof. Lucy (that uses greek Pi in the exponential:

> 2^(1/2 greek Pi) to define the large tone in that case, very

> close - but opposed - to 2^(1/6) of 12-TET)

First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,

all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for

for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly

dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.

-Carl

🔗Ben Miller <bencole.miller@...>

oh this is beautiful! it feels like astral music. i think the mp3 is very
awesome...i just listened to it.

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Michael Sheiman
<djtrancendance@...>wrote:

> > Sorry, I have a curiosity... nothing against using the golden
> > ratio, other irrationals like greek Pi, Neper's number... etc.
> > but: what should it be the peculiarity of using Phi (and also,
> > defining it as the octave)? I mean, with respect to other
> > irrationals, or even to any other number?
> The reasons I decided to try "messing" with it...are as follows
>
> A) Many other scales try to preserve the octave accurately first and a
> circle of tones (in the case of 12TET, fifths) second.
> Which begs the question "can I make a scale out of a ratio that can
> wrap around itself both as a 'circle' like the circle of fifths and act as
> an 'octave' thus optimizing both cases?" PHI seems to solve that demand,
> at least mathematically, IF you use PHI as both the octave and the generator
> of the scale.
>
> B) Simply by ear I tried several irrational ratios as generators and, of
> course, combinations of harmonic series and split harmonic series. Far as
> both ability to make melodies and chords, nothing came close to the scales I
> was able to generate from the 13-tone PHI tuning far as listen-ability. I
> was forced to let my ego go (on creating my own tunings) and give up my old
> tunings and use the pre-existing PHI tuning as my favorite basis for
> creating new scales.
>
> C) We seem to have endless discussions here about adaptive JI and what
> terrible things happen when you switch keys using standard JI and ratios
> (relative to the new base note) of the scale go out of tune. Since PHI is
> "infinitely symmetrical" about itself, it avoids the problem entirely. Thus
> transpositions of my scale (or any scale) along the PHI tuning sound just as
> good in any key...without any sort of adaptive tuning being needed.
> ************************
>
> So, as to why I chose PHI, it was a combination of numeric convenience
> as the fact my ears were strongly gravitating toward the results from the
> PHI tuning vs. tunings I had made from scratch. Now I am convinced, PHI can
> be a better generator for a tuning than JI harmonics or virtually any sort
> of pythagorean model...at least to my ears.
>
> -Michael
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 2/11/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Golden Ratio Scale mp3 example
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2009, 10:27 AM
>
> Hi Max,
>
> > Sorry, I have a curiosity... nothing against using the golden
> > ratio, other irrationals like greek Pi, Neper's number... etc.
> > but: what should it be the peculiarity of using Phi (and also,
> > defining it as the octave)? I mean, with respect to other
> > irrationals, or even to any other number?
>
> An excellent question. I can't speak for Michael. The
> golden ratio has been proposed for use in tunings many
> times, in different ways, most of them dubious in my
> opinion. One of the most considered attempts was undertaken
> here by Dave Keenan, Margo Schulter, and others in the
> earlier part of this decade, under the rubric of "metastable
> intervals" or "metastable scales". They suggested that
> phi and other noble numbers
>
> http://mathworld. wolfram.com/ NobleNumber. html<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NobleNumber.html>
>
> would be points of maximum ambiguity. They would be hard
> to associate with any one simple ratio, and scales containing
> such intervals would therefore have a unique sound. It
> may be what Michael is hearing. You can read more at:
>
> http://users. bigpond.net. au/d.keenan/ music/noblemedia nt.txt<http://dkeenan.com/music/noblemediant.txt>
>
> (However, it seems to me that just using the harmonic entropy
> maxima would be a better approach.)
>
> > Yhe same curiosity arosen when considering the tuning of
> > Prof. Lucy (that uses greek Pi in the exponential:
> > 2^(1/2 greek Pi) to define the large tone in that case, very
> > close - but opposed - to 2^(1/6) of 12-TET)
>
> First of all, Charles Lucy isn't a professor. Secondly,
> all of the myriad justifications Charles has offerred for
> for the use of pi in meantone over the years are highly
> dubious -- most of them nonsensical, actually.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

-- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> The reasons I decided to try "messing" with it...are as follows
>
> A) Many other scales try to preserve the octave accurately first
> and a circle of tones (in the case of 12TET, fifths) second.
> Which begs the question "can I make a scale out of a ratio
> that can wrap around itself both as a 'circle' like the circle of
> fifths and act as an 'octave' thus optimizing both cases?" PHI
> seems to solve that demand, at least mathematically, IF you use
> PHI as both the octave and the generator of the scale.

What does phi have to do with any of this? Wouldn't any
linear chain of some arbitrary interval give the same result?

> C) We seem to have endless discussions here about adaptive JI
> and what terrible things happen when you switch keys using
> standard JI and ratios (relative to the new base note) of the
> scale go out of tune. Since PHI is "infinitely symmetrical"
> about itself, it avoids the problem entirely. Thus
> transpositions of my scale (or any scale) along the PHI tuning
> sound just as good in any key...without any sort of adaptive
> tuning being needed.

Sorry, this makes no sense at all to me. Can you give an
example?

-Carl

Golden Ratio Scale mp3 example

🔗djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗massimilianolabardi <labardi@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Ben Miller <bencole.miller@...>

🔗Ben Miller <bencole.miller@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>