Carl up North for the weekend

Folks,

We're taking a family hotsprings retreat for a few days.
I may make time to check the list, but if I don't respond,
it isn't because I'm ignoring you.

-Carl

I have put up the mp3 of the tuning that Carl specified and as I listed in an earlier email into the same folder (with a jpeg of the tuning used) at:

http://www.lucytune.com/godsaveourqueen/

Listen, look and draw your conclusions.

On 14 Feb 2009, at 00:15, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Folks,
>
> We're taking a family hotsprings retreat for a few days.
> I may make time to check the list, but if I don't respond,
> it isn't because I'm ignoring you.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

>
> I have put up the mp3 of the tuning that Carl specified and as I listed in
> an earlier email into the same folder (with a jpeg of the tuning used) at:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/godsaveourqueen/
>
> Listen, look and draw your conclusions.
>

Lol, sorry but if I'm beeing honest, all 3 versions sound terrible :)
I'm not sure which one I'd pick if i had to make a choice.
The 12tet is the only one that doesn't have stand out notes. It sounds
consistently bad.
Your version often sounds a little bit better harmonically than Carls it
seems but it has notes that jump out and bite the ear so bad it makes my
whole face wrinkle, Carls version has this less.

Marcel

Thanks Marcel;

Maybe I should have mixed them, sorted out the levels, eq. effects, etc. instead of just throwing them out there quickly.

But that would have required running everything through my sound systems instead of just doing it quick and dirty on my laptop speakers;-)

If I had done decent mixes on them, I would have needed a different mix for each tuning to get the best sound, which would have destroyed the raw test purpose.

My intent was a tuning comparison not a final mix, and I really didn't want to endure that melody again. (It is after all the national anthem here and heard daily on BBC radio,

along with another horrendous piece called "Sailing By" on Radio 4.)

On 14 Feb 2009, at 01:41, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
> I have put up the mp3 of the tuning that Carl specified and as I > listed in an earlier email into the same folder (with a jpeg of the > tuning used) at:
>
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/godsaveourqueen/
>
> Listen, look and draw your conclusions.
>
> Lol, sorry but if I'm beeing honest, all 3 versions sound terrible :)
> I'm not sure which one I'd pick if i had to make a choice.
> The 12tet is the only one that doesn't have stand out notes. It > sounds consistently bad.
> Your version often sounds a little bit better harmonically than > Carls it seems but it has notes that jump out and bite the ear so > bad it makes my whole face wrinkle, Carls version has this less.
>
> Marcel
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Hi Charles,

Maybe I should have mixed them, sorted out the levels, eq. effects, etc.
> instead of just throwing them out there quickly.
>
> But that would have required running everything through my sound systems
> instead of just doing it quick and dirty on my laptop speakers;-)
>
> If I had done decent mixes on them, I would have needed a different mix for
> each tuning to get the best sound, which would have destroyed the raw test
> purpose.
>
> My intent was a tuning comparison not a final mix, and I really didn't want
> to endure that melody again. (It is after all the national anthem here and
> heard daily on BBC radio,
>
> along with another horrendous piece called "Sailing By" on Radio 4.)
>

No sorry, what I ment was not about the sound level of certain notes jumping
out and biting my ear.
But the tuning of certain notes sound off and "bite my ear".
Yours seems to be doing more retuning than Carls version but at the expense
that some of the notes are more out of tune in your version.
Can't say which one I prefer.

Marcel

perhaps my hearing is shot

I don't hear a difference between lucy and 12 tet

it could be that the timbres are different - but.... I almost failed ear
training

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com> wrote:

> I have put up the mp3 of the tuning that Carl specified and as I listed
> in an earlier email into the same folder (with a jpeg of the tuning used)
> at:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/godsaveourqueen/
>
> Listen, look and draw your conclusions.
>
> On 14 Feb 2009, at 00:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> We're taking a family hotsprings retreat for a few days.
> I may make time to check the list, but if I don't respond,
> it isn't because I'm ignoring you.
>
> -Carl
>
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...m
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>

Certainly more "out of tune" from 12edo, as you can see by the numbers.

>
> No sorry, what I ment was not about the sound level of certain notes > jumping out and biting my ear.
> But the tuning of certain notes sound off and "bite my ear".
> Yours seems to be doing more retuning than Carls version but at the > expense that some of the notes are more out of tune in your version.

> Can't say which one I prefer.
>
> Marcel
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

I don't know what's wrong with it for Marcel or anyone else, to me the version with the tuning Carl posted sounds perfectly okay.

Petr

There is no question in my mind, Lucy Tuning sounds better.
    I agree with Carl mathematically there are all but a few cents difference between Lucy Tuning and the mean-tone scale used.
   But, for some reason...that little mathematical difference seems to allow the brain to tie things together more easily...almost like comparing a circle to a slightly jagged circle.

   Again, maybe Lucy Tuning does not have the academic "proof" in some people's minds to truly be considered something new and I'll admit it sounds a lot like a purer version of 12TET with virtually the same chords and emotions...it's doesn't really create any new music theories so much as it purifies existing ones.  Then again, to some extent, the same "emotional originality limit" can be said of 5-limit JI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But it seems obvious to me...that some special irrational ratios like PI truly do have special meaning, even when stuck into "old" scale creation formulas like mean-tone.

   One question I do have (and I might try myself)...is what happens when you create a tuning from PI directly IE result tone 243 * (PI ^ X / 2^Y) where PI = 1 to about 16 and Y is whatever number is needed to make (PI ^ X / 2^Y) equal to somewhere between 0 and PI (where PI is the octave).  How much different would a scale under that tuning that sound from Lucy Tuning (likely quite a bit)...and would it sound better or worse?

   Or...do any of you know about any experiments involving scales based on PI where PI is  used as the equivalent of the octave?

-Michael

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

From: Charles Lucy <lucy@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Carl up North for the weekend - God save ---- Carl's tuning mp3 & jpg
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 5:31 PM

I have put up the mp3 of the tuning that Carl specified and as I listed in an earlier email into the same folder (with a jpeg of the tuning used) at:
http://www.lucytune .com/godsaveourq ueen/
Listen, look and draw your conclusions.
On 14 Feb 2009, at 00:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
Folks,

We're taking a family hotsprings retreat for a few days.
I may make time to check the list, but if I don't respond,
it isn't because I'm ignoring you.

-Carl

Charles Lucylucy@lucytune. com
- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
for information on LucyTuning go to:http://www.lucytune .com
For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:http://www.lullabie s.co.uk

agreed.

They sound different, and the God Save Carl version sounded best, to me.

On Feb 14, 2009, at 5:20 AM, Petr Parízek wrote:

>
> I don't know what's wrong with it for Marcel or anyone else, to me
> the version with the tuning Carl posted sounds perfectly okay.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>

To my ears, from more to less consonant:

GodSaveQueenEb12edo.mp3

GodSaveCarl.mp3

GodSaveQueenEb5b0s.mp3

In the last two, it seems to me that some notes in the melody are
slightly flat. 12-edo seems ok to me, although not "perfect."

This is just my modest opinion. I am not an advanced musician and
surely my ear is not educated further than 5-limit.

Max

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> I have put up the mp3 of the tuning that Carl specified and as I
> listed in an earlier email into the same folder (with a jpeg of
the
> tuning used) at:
>
> http://www.lucytune.com/godsaveourqueen/
>
> Listen, look and draw your conclusions.
>
> On 14 Feb 2009, at 00:15, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > We're taking a family hotsprings retreat for a few days.
> > I may make time to check the list, but if I don't respond,
> > it isn't because I'm ignoring you.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
> >
>
> Charles Lucy
> lucy@...
>
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>
> for information on LucyTuning go to:
> http://www.lucytune.com
>
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
> http://www.lullabies.co.uk
>

Michael wrote:

> I agree with Carl mathematically there are all but a few cents difference between Lucy
> Tuning and the mean-tone scale used.
> But, for some reason...that little mathematical difference seems to allow the brain to tie
> things together more easily...almost like comparing a circle to a slightly jagged circle.

The problem I think we were discussing is not that Lucy tuning couldn't sound better than one particular kind of meantone temperament, but rather that I think I could easily find another one which may sound equally "pleasing to my ears". For example, for the time being, what I find very pleasant to my ears is a meantone temperament where the octave is 1/9 of the syntonic comma wider than a pure octave and the fifth is 2/9 of the syntonic comma narrower than a pure fifth. And I think (I say, I THINK) I know why it sounds so great. The major and minor thirds are only 1/9th of the syntonic comma away from pure; and major and minor tenths are actually pure here.

> One question I do have (and I might try myself)...is what happens when you create a
> tuning from PI directly IE result tone 243 * (PI ^ X / 2^Y) where PI = 1 to about 16 and Y
> is whatever number is needed to make (PI ^ X / 2^Y) equal to somewhere between 0 and PI
> (where PI is the octave). How much different would a scale under that tuning that sound
> from Lucy Tuning (likely quite a bit)...and would it sound better or worse?

First of all, what's that 243 there? And then, isn't this the actual concept of regular temperaments where one interval is called the "period" and the other is called the "generator"? For example, in quarter-comma meantone, the period is a pure octave and the generator is ~696.5 cents (i.e. its factor is the fourth root of 5). This means that the syntonic comma (i.e. the difference between 4 fifths minus 2 octaves and a pure major third) is made to turn into unison and that the distance of 4 fifths minus 2 octaves is tuned to 5/4. This is one of many, many possibilities how to get 2-dimmensional temperaments. If you read through the beginning messages of the "Musts ..." thread on this list, there I posted a link to a list of 2D temperaments which Herman wrote earlier.

Petr

==============================

I have put up the mp3 of the tuning that Carl specified and as I listed in an earlier email into the same folder (with a jpeg of the tuning used) at:

http://www.lucytune .com/godsaveourq ueen/

Listen, look and draw your conclusions.

On 14 Feb 2009, at 00:15, Carl Lumma wrote:

Folks,

We're taking a family hotsprings retreat for a few days.
I may make time to check the list, but if I don't respond,
it isn't because I'm ignoring you.

-Carl

Charles Lucy

lucy@lucytune. com

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:

http://www.lucytune .com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:

http://www.lullabie s.co.uk

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> There is no question in my mind, Lucy Tuning sounds better.

Please note: it is highly unlikely the "Carl" version is actually
in the scale I posted.

-Carl

--First
of all, what's that 243 there?
     243HZ...I think that's around the starting frequency of the note "C".

--And then, isn’t this the actual concept of
regular temperaments where one interval is ---called the „period“ and the
other is called the „generator“?
I believe so.  Meaning, the period is the octave and the generator is what's used to create the "circle of 5ths" used to make the scale?  If I got the definitions right, I think we're on the same page more or less.  In that case, for my idea of a pure "PI" scale the "octave" period would be PI and the generator would also be PI. 

--If you read through the beginning messages of
the „Musts ...“ thread on this list, there --I posted a link to a list of 2D
temperaments which Herman wrote earlier.
Hmm...I missed that message (and, hey, maybe a PI tuning was somewhere in there)...could you please give me a link?

-Michael

Petr Par�zek wrote:

> The problem I think we were discussing is not that Lucy tuning couldn�t > sound better than one particular kind of meantone temperament, but > rather that I think I could easily find another one which may sound > equally �pleasing to my ears�. For example, for the time being, what I > find very pleasant to my ears is a meantone temperament where the octave > is 1/9 of the syntonic comma wider than a pure octave and the fifth is > 2/9 of the syntonic comma narrower than a pure fifth. And I think (I > say, I THINK) I know why it sounds so great. The major and minor thirds > are only 1/9th of the syntonic comma away from pure; and major and minor > tenths are actually pure here.

The first thing I noticed when trying out a tuning with slightly sharp octaves (1/7 of a comma in my case) was how that slight detuning made the octaves sound better to my ears than the pure electronic octave -- the individual notes can be perceived more distinctly. With an electronic instrument, and both notes coming from the same speaker, that makes a difference (especially when the rest of the scale is tempered). So it's possible that part of the reason why that tuning sounds so good is the slight detuning of the octave.

Michael wrote:

> 243HZ...I think that's around the starting frequency of the note "C".

243Hz is a bit lower than B3, C4 is about 261.6Hz, as long as we are using 12-equal and we want A4 to be 440Hz.

> I believe so. Meaning, the period is the octave and the generator is what's used to create the
> "circle of 5ths" used to make the scale? If I got the definitions right, I think we're on the
> same page more or less. In that case, for my idea of a pure "PI" scale the "octave" period
> would be PI and the generator would also be PI.

I Don’t know what you mean. You can’t have the period of the same size as the generator because that would create a scale whose smallest contained interval would be the period and there would be no possible way to make smaller intervals then. But you’ve said that your tuning uses reduction to 2/1, which probably means that your generator is „phi“ and your period is 2/1. In fact, IIRC, Carl said he thought the same.

> Hmm...I missed that message (and, hey, maybe a PI tuning was somewhere in there)...could
> you please give me a link?

Probably there isn’t because your tuning doesn’t temper out any particular comma, which is the main requirement of regular temperaments. Anyway: /tuning/topicId_71713.html#71722

Petr

==============================

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> There is no question in my mind, Lucy Tuning sounds better.

- Better than what? Better than everything else, or better than the
one or two specific comparisons that happen to have been put next to it?

> I agree with Carl mathematically there are all but a few cents
difference between Lucy Tuning and the mean-tone scale used.
> But, for some reason...that little mathematical difference seems
to allow the brain to tie things together more easily...

Before we get into pseudo-neurological mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean
by 'sounds better' specifically in this context? Perhaps it's actually
some mundane quality like the relative degree of impurity of major and
minor thirds. Perhaps 1/3-comma meantone or 88-edo would sound even
better to you...

> But it seems obvious to me...that some special irrational ratios
like PI truly do have special meaning, even when stuck into "old"
scale creation formulas like mean-tone.

Why? Any irrational interval can be well approximated by rational
ones. Even Charles' synthesizer doesn't produce exactly the irrational
ratios that his tuning scheme has in theory - only frequencies quite
close to them. Beyond a certain point the difference between rational
and irrational is LITERALLY undetectable and inaudible.
And even before that point, you reach one where there is no detectable
difference between tunings in musical use.
~~~T~~~

> There is no question in my mind, Lucy Tuning sounds better.
---- Better than what? Better than everything else, or better than the
----one or two specific comparisons that happen to have been put next to it?

    Better than the other two comparisons.  Significantly so...in the case of about 5% of the chords in the example...but almost indistinguishably so in other chords.

    But, considering one of the comparisons was 12TET, it opens the question is it worth it for common musicians to use Lucy Tuning instead of 12TET to clarify those few chords?

    On a side note, I've found scales under 43TET quite useful...but good luck getting many real-world musicians to fit that on a keyboard or other instrument or memorize all the sweet spots....

---Perhaps it's actually some mundane quality like the relative degree of impurity of major ---and minor thirds.
    Actually, I think it is. :-D   To me, anything more than 10 cents off pure (and/or not creating a beating that points my mind toward the pure interval) tends to sound too tense.
   I think you could summarize my objection to the 12TET version as too much "tensity" in certain chords...call it "mundane", but it does get to me.

> But it seems obvious to me...that some special irrational ratios
>like PI truly do have special meaning, even when stuck into "old"

>scale creation formulas like mean-tone.
---Why? Any irrational interval can be well approximated by rational
---ones.
   I don't know b/c I'm far from a cutting-edge scale mathematician.  But I have a strong hunch that it has something to do with the way the overtones beat (more harmonically?) and/or the idea that the mind has an easy time calculating scales where the period/"octave" and the equivalent of the 5th (the note used to generate the equivalent of the "circle of 5ths" are the same note.
   In 12TET, obviously, the octave and "5th" used to draw the circle of notes are different ratios (3/2 and 2/1)...but in, for example, the PHI/"golden ratio" tuning, the octave and the note used to generate the "near circle" are exactly the same IE they are both 1.618...and making them different IE 1.618 and 2 makes the scale sound much worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Beyond a certain point the difference between rational
---and irrational is LITERALLY undetectable and inaudible.

   True, I'm sure you sound, say, translate a scale based on PI or PHI or another irrational to something like 53TET and not be able to tell the difference.  In fact, it seems at about 1/10-1/12th of a tone the brain can't tell the difference.

    But how practical is an instrument with 53 notes outside of purely software-based composition?

   That's why I figure it's better to go with an irrational scale than using a rational one with ratios like 304/253 used to approximate the irrational notes.  Better to go with, say, an instrument with more like 14 irrationally based tones per octave, it seems.

-Michael

--- On Sun, 2/15/09, Tom Dent <stringph@...> wrote:

From: Tom Dent <stringph@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Carl up North for the weekend - God save ---- Carl's tuning mp3 & jpg
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009, 11:38 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:

>

> There is no question in my mind, Lucy Tuning sounds better.

- Better than what? Better than everything else, or better than the

one or two specific comparisons that happen to have been put next to it?

> I agree with Carl mathematically there are all but a few cents

difference between Lucy Tuning and the mean-tone scale used.

> But, for some reason...that little mathematical difference seems

to allow the brain to tie things together more easily...

Before we get into pseudo-neurological mumbo-jumbo, what do you mean

by 'sounds better' specifically in this context? Perhaps it's actually

some mundane quality like the relative degree of impurity of major and

minor thirds. Perhaps 1/3-comma meantone or 88-edo would sound even

better to you...

> But it seems obvious to me...that some special irrational ratios

like PI truly do have special meaning, even when stuck into "old"

scale creation formulas like mean-tone.

Why? Any irrational interval can be well approximated by rational

ones. Even Charles' synthesizer doesn't produce exactly the irrational

ratios that his tuning scheme has in theory - only frequencies quite

close to them. Beyond a certain point the difference between rational

and irrational is LITERALLY undetectable and inaudible.

And even before that point, you reach one where there is no detectable

difference between tunings in musical use.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>     Better than the other two comparisons.  Significantly so...
>in the case of about 5% of the chords in the example...but almost
>indistinguishably so in other chords.

Perfect example here, Michael. You seem to be going ahead as
if these comparisons were done correctly. Did you see my warning
that they probably are not?

-Carl

>     Better than the other two comparisons.  Significantly so...

>in the case of about 5% of the chords in the example...but almost

>indistinguishably so in other chords.

--Perfect example here, Michael. You seem to be going ahead as
--if these comparisons were done correctly. Did you see my warning
--that they probably are not?

   Yes I did, you warned that your own scale was not interpreted correctly and I believe that.  However, it does sound better in that example than 12TET...and that is what I was referring to.

--- On Mon, 2/16/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Carl up North for the weekend - God save ---- Carl's tuning mp3 & jpg
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 12:58 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@ ...> wrote:

>

>     Better than the other two comparisons.  Significantly so...

>in the case of about 5% of the chords in the example...but almost

>indistinguishably so in other chords.

Perfect example here, Michael. You seem to be going ahead as

if these comparisons were done correctly. Did you see my warning

that they probably are not?

-Carl