Suggestion for Michael

Hello Michael,

if you insist on using Phi as the period of your irrational basis scale, why not try Phi^(1/Phi), the Phith root of Phi, about 1.34636082003 or 514.878118846 cents, as the generator?

http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-903e-text

This talks about successive multiples Mod[h n, 1] of a number but has consequences for generated scales i.e. Phith root of the period as the generator will "maximize the average difference of successive values".

The moments of symmetry are at Fibonacci numbers and the log-frequency ratio between large and small steps is Phi!

This seems to hit many small number ratios quite closely.

Kalle Aho

--The moments of symmetry are at Fibonacci numbers and the log-frequency ratio between --large and small steps is Phi!

Kalle,

     Sounds like a fantastic idea!  It seems all the symmetries are maintained and yet more accuracy is possible.

  This also will help me fulfill a problem I've come across in a diatonic scale study I was doing which shows the importance of frequency accuracy EVEN for notes played in unison. 
    The problem is demonstrated as follows:

    Take the middle C.  Now play a note 1.83333 times it (11/6), just by itself.  Guess what?  1.833333 still sounds dissonant (and same goes, to some extent, for 29/16 IE 1.8125  )! 
   
Now try 1.79167 (43/24
barely any different)...sounds MUCH and more consonant and better, even in unison, doesn't it?!
   Also notice...5/3 IE 1.66666 doesn't sound
so hot in unison either. 
-------------------------------------
   It seems virtually all of us have been ignoring perhaps the most basic problem: the fact many frequencies, even when played in unison IE by themselves, sound dissonant.  I'm sure it has something to do with the alignment of the basilar membranes...it's just food for thought.  :-)

  BTW, is anyone interested in helping me compile a list of virtually all available low-numbered-fraction frequencies that sound most consonant in unison (for starters)...before I try starting to summarize the irrational scale-generated ratios that sound best in unison?

-Michael

It seems virtually all of us have been ignoring perhaps the most basic
problem: the fact many frequencies, even when played in unison IE by
themselves, sound dissonant. I'm sure it has something to do with the
alignment of the basilar membranes...it's just food for thought. :-)

Perhaps is food for YOUR thought ... :-)

You are implying that our basilar membrane hears some frequencies as
dissonant.
If so, it will certainly not matter-actually be better-to test the thing
with pure sounds.

Have done that. Myself and armies of stereo technicians for decades.
During the 80's and 90's I used to carry out for myself and friends precise
calibration of equalisers in hi-fi settings.
One of the standard tests is the frequency sweep of pure sound, which allows
detecting standing waves in a room.
Throughout the human spectrum of frequencies, I never spotted a frequency
that sounded dissonant to me.
The few times it happened, of course, it was down to a strange resonance in
the room, or a speaker producing audible distortion at some frequencies.
(the problem was not specific of frequency and my ear: changing either the
speaker or its location resolved the issue).

Have you found in the existing scientific literature-or perhaps just on a
serious website-a reference to the effect you are mentioning?

Regards

Claudio

During the
80's and 90's I used to carry out for myself and
friends precise calibration of
equalisers in hi-fi settings.  One of the
standard tests is the frequency sweep of pure sound, which allows
detecting standing waves in a room.  Throughout
the human spectrum of frequencies, I never spotted a frequency that sounded
dissonant to me.

  Right...but are these actual instruments playing a single note or more like filter sweeps or sine waves?  BTW: I realize "consonance" is an odd word to use b/c of course a note can't clash with itself..."resolve"/"relaxation" perhaps describes more what I'm aiming for. 

   Notice how even in "plain old" 12TET music, that when you transpose certain melodies to certain keys they sound MUCH more tense?  I have a strong suspicion this is a side-effect of my "tuning a unison note to the basilar membrane" issue.

******************************************************************************
    I'm utterly convinced of this, though I haven't been able to find any research on it (what the heck would you search for anyhow "tuning to the basilar membrane", "consonance of frequencies in unison"?   If you can find any documents, though, rest assured I will read them. :-)

Here are a few tests you can try yourself:
A) move the middle c from 261.626hz to about 261.329 (multiple by about 44050/44100)
B) move the middle from middle c * 1.25 to the middle c * 1.2684
C) move the middle from middle * 1.5 to the middle c * 1.515

    I think the results by ear more than speak for themselves...the emotion gained when using such.  And, yes, I did try this on different speaker, at different angles,
on headphones (and I have excellent headphones, not cheap I-pod ones)...and there was no difference to my ears: the theory still worked.

-Michael

--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@braybaroque.ie>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 4:39 PM

It seems virtually all of us have been ignoring perhaps the most basic
problem: the fact many frequencies, even when played in unison IE by themselves,
sound dissonant.  I'm sure it has something to do with the alignment of the
basilar membranes... it's just food for thought.  :-) 
 
Perhaps is
food for YOUR thought ... :-)
 
You are
implying that our basilar membrane hears some frequencies as
dissonant.
If so, it
will certainly not matter-actually be better-to test the thing with pure
sounds.
 
Have done
that. Myself and armies of stereo technicians for decades.
During the
80's and 90's I used to carry out for myself and
friends precise calibration of
equalisers in hi-fi settings.
One of the
standard tests is the frequency sweep of pure sound, which allows
detecting standing waves in a room.
Throughout
the human spectrum of frequencies, I never spotted a frequency that sounded
dissonant to me.
The few times
it happened, of course, it was down to a strange resonance in the room, or a
speaker producing audible distortion at some frequencies.
(the problem
was not specific of frequency and my ear: changing either the speaker or its
location resolved the issue).
 
Have you
found in the existing scientific literature-or perhaps just on a serious
website-a reference to the effect you are mentioning?
 
Regards
 
Claudio

----B) move the middle from middle c * 1.25 to the middle c * 1.2684

Correction, should be c * 1.267

--- On Sat, 4/4/09, djtrancendance@... <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

From: djtrancendance@... <djtrancendance@...>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 6:59 AM

During the
80's and 90's I used to carry out for myself and
friends precise calibration of
equalisers in hi-fi settings.  One of the
standard tests is the frequency sweep of pure sound, which allows
detecting standing waves in a room.  Throughout
the human spectrum of frequencies, I never spotted a frequency that sounded
dissonant to me.

  Right...but are these actual instruments playing a single note or more like filter sweeps or sine waves?  BTW: I realize "consonance" is an odd word to use b/c of course a note can't clash with itself..."resolve" /"relaxation" perhaps describes more what I'm aiming for. 

   Notice how even in "plain old" 12TET music, that when you transpose certain melodies to certain keys they sound MUCH more tense?  I have a strong suspicion this is a side-effect of my "tuning a unison note to the basilar membrane" issue.

************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ********* ***
    I'm utterly convinced of this, though I haven't been able to find any research on it (what the heck would you search for anyhow "tuning to the basilar membrane", "consonance of frequencies in unison"?   If you can find any documents, though, rest assured I will read them. :-)

Here are a few tests you can try yourself:
A) move the middle c from 261.626hz to about 261.329 (multiple by about 44050/44100)
B) move the middle from middle c * 1.25 to the middle c * 1.2684
C) move the middle from middle * 1.5 to the middle c * 1.515

    I think the results by ear more than speak for themselves.. .the emotion gained when using such.  And, yes, I did try this on different speaker, at different angles,
on headphones (and I have excellent headphones, not cheap I-pod ones)...and there was no difference to my ears: the theory still worked.

-Michael

--- On Fri, 4/3/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@braybaroque. ie> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@braybaroque. ie>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 4:39 PM

It seems virtually all of us have been ignoring perhaps the most basic
problem: the fact many frequencies, even when played in unison IE by themselves,
sound dissonant.  I'm sure it has something to do with the alignment of the
basilar membranes... it's just food for thought.  :-) 
 
Perhaps is
food for YOUR thought ... :-)
 
You are
implying that our basilar membrane hears some frequencies as
dissonant.
If so, it
will certainly not matter-actually be better-to test the thing with pure
sounds.
 
Have done
that. Myself and armies of stereo technicians for decades.
During the
80's and 90's I used to carry out for myself and
friends precise calibration of
equalisers in hi-fi settings.
One of the
standard tests is the frequency sweep of pure sound, which allows
detecting standing waves in a room.
Throughout
the human spectrum of frequencies, I never spotted a frequency that sounded
dissonant to me.
The few times
it happened, of course, it was down to a strange resonance in the room, or a
speaker producing audible distortion at some frequencies.
(the problem
was not specific of frequency and my ear: changing either the speaker or its
location resolved the issue).
 
Have you
found in the existing scientific literature-or perhaps just on a serious
website-a reference to the effect you are mentioning?
 
Regards
 
Claudio

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Here are a few tests you can try yourself:
> A) move the middle c from 261.626hz to about 261.329 (multiple by about 44050/44100)
> B) move the middle from middle c * 1.25 to the middle c * 1.2684
> C) move the middle from middle * 1.5 to the middle c * 1.515
>

Sounds like you might be gifted of "perfect pitch"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_pitch

Max

Max wrote:

> Sounds like you might be gifted of "perfect pitch"....

I think what Michael is describing is pretty much a matter of subjective evaluation. I myself can very clearly distinguish absolute pitches but anyway I think many people simply hear what they "wish to hear". Considering, for instance, the example of transposing music into different keys, I could say that it depends on two things: A) what instruments and what tuning you use, B) where you set your A (or C or whatever). For example, I can quite happily convince myself that now the A4 is at 440Hz and in another piece the A4 is at 415Hz (serious problems start arising when the A gets outside this range to about 400Hz or 460Hz or some such). Let's take an example of some music played in Pythagorean tuning in the key of C major at the standard pitch (i.e. A4 = 440Hz).If this was played on an old piano or on a harpsichord and if it was harmonically similar to some Baroque music, then I would very quickly ask: "Hey, isn't it actually Db played in a well temperament?" And from then on, I may také a completely different view on the piece even though I previously considered it to be C. And suddenly, I may say: "So it's pretty full of accidentals". But if the same piece of music was played on instruments whose tuning I am completely unsure about, I would probably consider it to be C played in Pythagorean because it's the way I'm used to recognizing pitches or chords. Likewise, if I hear music in B major played in a meantone-like tuning with older instruments, I'll probably think it should be C major with an A4 of about 415Hz, while if the same piece in the same tuning were played on a modern Steinway grand or something, I would probably consider it more "tonally distant" because I would call it B major. But generally, it's usually okay for me to recognize pitches with the A4 being 440Hz and it's more difficult for me when I have to intentionally convince myself to choose something else as the A.

Petr

Do you have classical "absolute pitch" though or do you simply have a
good sense of relative pitch and a decent tonal memory? I am AP1 and
for me, hearing 415 Hz as anything except Ab is extremely difficult.
I've actually been working on hearing notes as adjacent notes (A as Ab
and Ab as A and so on), but I feel intuitively like it's going to
screw me up when I'm trying to just play A440.

-Mike

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
> Max wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you might be gifted of "perfect pitch"....
>
> I think what Michael is describing is pretty much a matter of subjective
> evaluation. I myself can very clearly distinguish absolute pitches but
> anyway I think many people simply hear what they „wish to hear“.
> Considering, for instance, the example of transposing music into different
> keys, I could say that it depends on two things: A) what instruments and
> what tuning you use, B) where you set your A (or C or whatever). For
> example, I can quite happily convince myself that now the A4 is at 440Hz and
> in another piece the A4 is at 415Hz (serious problems start arising when the
> A gets outside this range to about 400Hz or 460Hz or some such). Let’s take
> an example of some music played in Pythagorean tuning in the key of C major
> at the standard pitch (i.e. A4 = 440Hz).If this was played on an old piano
> or on a harpsichord and if it was harmonically similar to some Baroque
> music, then I would very quickly ask: „Hey, isn’t it actually Db played in a
> well temperament?“ And from then on, I may také a completely different view
> on the piece even though I previously considered it to be C. And suddenly, I
> may say: „So it’s pretty full of accidentals“. But if the same piece of
> music was played on instruments whose tuning I am completely unsure about, I
> would probably consider it to be C played in Pythagorean because it’s the
> way I’m used to recognizing pitches or chords. Likewise, if I hear music in
> B major played in a meantone-like tuning with older instruments, I’ll
> probably think it should be C major with an A4 of about 415Hz, while if the
> same piece in the same tuning were played on a modern Steinway grand or
> something, I would probably consider it more „tonally distant“ because I
> would call it B major. But generally, it’s usually okay for me to recognize
> pitches with the A4 being 440Hz and it’s more difficult for me when I have
> to intentionally convince myself to choose something else as the A.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mike wrote:

> Do you have classical "absolute pitch" though or do you simply have a
> good sense of relative pitch and a decent tonal memory? I am AP1 and
> for me, hearing 415 Hz as anything except Ab is extremely difficult.
> I've actually been working on hearing notes as adjacent notes (A as Ab
> and Ab as A and so on), but I feel intuitively like it's going to
> screw me up when I'm trying to just play A440.

I very well know what you�re talking about as I have experienced this many times myself, although in different situations than you may expect. Until I was about 6 years old, the upride piano we had at home was tuned about a semitone lower than usual. Then, still going to the nursery school, I met some people there who were actually playing piano there somewhere. When I said I also knew how to play the piano and they allowed me to try, I realized everything was sounding higher than I expected. When I then went home and told my parents, they had almost no idea what I was talking about (neither of them is a musician, in fact). But anyway, they found a guy who got the piano �in tune� and then it was okay for me. :-D

Speaking about the possibility of deliberately switching to a different pitch reference while hearing music, I started thinking about that at the times I first became interested in early music. But anyway, I was more or less successful in learning to do that because, as I�ve said, I had already experienced �too-low-tuned� pianos earlier. What would probably be much more frustrating for me would be if Baroque orchestras should be using an A4 of, let�s say, 460Hz. You know what ... Recordings of old church organs are still a great deal of a problem for me because of these very same reasons. Many of them really are tuned remarcably higher than what we use today.

Petr

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Michael,
>
> if you insist on using Phi as the period of your irrational basis scale, why not try Phi^(1/Phi), the Phith root of Phi, about 1.34636082003 or 514.878118846 cents, as the generator?
>
> http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-903e-text
>
> This talks about successive multiples Mod[h n, 1] of a number but has consequences for generated scales i.e. Phith root of the period as the generator will "maximize the average difference of successive values".
>
> The moments of symmetry are at Fibonacci numbers and the log-frequency ratio between large and small steps is Phi!
>
> This seems to hit many small number ratios quite closely.
>
> Kalle Aho
>
Hi Kalle,

I was following the Wolfram thread you posted and out of curiosity went to the intro where it started with something like "300 years ago science discovered that mathematical equations could be used to describe the natural world". But this is a terrible historical anachronism, inaccurate by about 2200 years. In A History of Greek Philosophy, W.K.C. Guthrie states `There has been general agreement among scholars that the numerical explanation of the universe was a generalization from a notable discovery made by Pythagoras himself…From Cornford we have:

the original source of the theory, Pythagoras's discovery (circa 570 B.C) that the concordant intervals of the musical scale or 'harmony' could be expressed exactly in terms of the `simple' ratios…. Pythagoras was capable of abstracting this complex of conceptions from the particular case of sound. It must have been a flash of inspired insight that he saw in it a formula of universal application. '

So given that the current western education system is keyed towards this 'scientific' rewriting of history, it is hardly surprising to find that even musicians are largely unfamiliar with their very own heritage, this despite the more recent discovery that waves do in fact govern the universe. Relating back to the chapter you posted, the Fibbonachi series is a subset of the natural numbers, which means that superimposing waves of frequencies 1,2,3,5,8,13...will simply produce a periodic wave of frequency 1. And as for their limit PHI, this is an irrational number and has no common period. Being a painter I use the golden mean all the time. But in attempting to bring music and art together, I tried for years to find a musical meaning for it and had to conclude that it was all just "Phi in the sky" (boom boom). In other words, it was music which put maths and science on the map, not the other way around, and I have since learnt not to apply maths to music without going to the source - waves.

-Ricardo

Rick wrote:

> Relating back to the chapter you posted, the Fibbonachi series
> is a subset of the natural numbers, which means that superimposing waves
> of frequencies 1,2,3,5,8,13...will simply produce a periodic wave
> of frequency 1. And as for their limit PHI, this is an irrational number
> and has no common period.

Of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean or imply that a common frequency is the only way to make chords sound "interesting". If you cared more about difference tones, you would soon realize that a set of tones which are ~833.0903 cents apart (i.e. factors of Phi) can make acoustically interesting results as well because the difference of two consecutive frequencies is equal to the frequency right below the two. If you wish, I can find some audio examples where I was experimenting with precisely this.

Petr

---And as for their limit PHI, this is an irrational number and has no common period.

---Of course, but that doesn’t necessarily mean or imply that a common frequency is the ---only way to make chords sound „interesting“.

   Ok, the only way I can think of to balance these two with more than an opinion is a direct comparison of the systems.

  On one hand, we have the harmonic series.  Yes, it's very very consonant...up to about harmonic 21-23 or so when the beating becomes excessive between overtones.  This pattern, is course, can be described as "TONAL" because the periodic (same difference) nature between any 2 tones in the series reduce to one difference value and that value IS the value of the root tone (and the one the brain can derive as the
root hearing just any two tones in the series via the difference tone).  I'm pretty sure most of us knew this already....

   But what's wrong with the harmonic series?  Anyone heard of TONAL COLOR? Of course...and the harmonic
series on has one tonal color: its root tone!

   The thing is...tonal color is largely dependent on mixed intervals IE scales based on either more than one harmonic series relationship (hence o-tonally/u-tonally related ratios) OR not using the harmonic series at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   I used to think a HUGE part of micro-tonal music IS based on the search for MORE (not less) tonal color: but I'm starting to think "harmonic series fundamentalism" is "yelling" over virtually any attempt to approach this issue on the tuning thread, and with little proof for dominance other than "it is how it is". 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The whole idea of using PHI (or ANY noble number) is to make DIFFERENT difference tones between any two notes in the scale and yet have those difference tones be
proportional in such a way the mind can very easily interpret them.

  GRANTED, many notes in the PHI tuning, such as 1.30902 and 1.33203 SIMPLY CAN AND SHOULD NOT BE USED TOGETHER IN A SCALE due to beating issue.  But if you find the sweet spots that comply fairly well with both Helmholtz/P&L's psychoacoustic theories you can make scales with TONS of tonal color and little loss of consonance vs. JI. 

   What's better still...since all numbers in the scale are symmetrical about each other...you don't have to worry about concepts like aligning everything with the root tone, third...as everything is, by nature, mathematically aligned to something else and any "sourness" is more-or-less constant throughout the scale...unlike in JI where, for example, the 5th and octave are always disproportionately less sour than the other notes. 

   I'm not saying PHI is superior to Pythagorean based
musical theories...but, rather, it produces higher AVERAGE dissonance but a lower limit on maximum dissonance between any two intervals (a bit like mean-tone "minimax" scales)...and allows significantly more tonal color than JI.  So it's a trade-off...but surely not an inferiority point.

  And yes, PHI (or any noble-number based tuning) does make chords sound very very interesting...

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/5/09, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:

From: Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 6:40 AM

Rick
wrote:
>
Relating back to the chapter you posted, the Fibbonachi series
> is a
subset of the natural numbers, which means that superimposing waves
> of
frequencies 1,2,3,5,8,13. ..will simply produce a periodic wave
> of
frequency 1. And as for their limit PHI, this is an irrational number
>
and has no common period.
Of
course, but that doesn’t necessarily mean or imply that a common frequency is
the only way to make chords sound „interesting“. If you cared more about
difference tones, you would soon realize that a set of tones which are ~833.0903
cents apart (i.e. factors of Phi) can make acoustically interesting results as
well because the difference of two consecutive frequencies is equal to the
frequency right below the two. If you wish, I can find some audio examples where
I was experimenting with precisely this.
Petr
 
 

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Claudio Di Veroli" <dvc@...> wrote:

> Throughout the human spectrum of frequencies, I never spotted a
> frequency that sounded dissonant to me.

Well spotted,
because only combinations of at least two different frquencies
can produce any
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance
on the basilar-membrane.

bye
A.S.

Yes we all have known this since we first opened a book in musical acoustics
Andreas.
But some members of the list, if you read some posts, have put even this in
doubt.

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Andreas Sparschuh
Sent: 05 April 2009 16:49
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> com, "Claudio
Di Veroli" <dvc@...> wrote:

> Throughout the human spectrum of frequencies, I never spotted a
> frequency that sounded dissonant to me.

Well spotted,
because only combinations of at least two different frquencies
can produce any
http://en.wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance>
.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance
on the basilar-membrane.

bye
A.S.

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

> I was following the Wolfram thread you posted and out of curiosity >went to the intro where it started with something like "300 years ago >science discovered that mathematical equations could be used to >describe the natural world". But this is a terrible historical >anachronism, inaccurate by about 2200 years....
>... Relating back to the chapter you posted, the Fibbonachi series is >a subset of the natural numbers, which means that superimposing waves >of frequencies 1,2,3,5,8,13... Being a painter I use the golden mean >all the time. But in attempting to bring music and art together, I >tried for years to find a musical meaning for it and had to conclude >that it was all just "Phi in the sky" (boom boom). In other words, it >was music which put maths and science on the map, not the other way >around....

Hi Rick,

already the old Greeks and Romans used that series in architecture, alike:
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#parthenon

then later it got even applied to
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#music

attend also the
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#muslinks

bye
A.S.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
>
> > Relating back to the chapter you posted, the Fibbonachi series
> > is a subset of the natural numbers, which means that superimposing waves
> > of frequencies 1,2,3,5,8,13...will simply produce a periodic wave
> > of frequency 1. And as for their limit PHI, this is an irrational number
> > and has no common period.
>
> Of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean or imply that a common frequency is the only way to make chords sound "interesting". If you cared more about difference tones, you would soon realize that a set of tones which are ~833.0903 cents apart (i.e. factors of Phi) can make acoustically interesting results as well because the difference of two consecutive frequencies is equal to the frequency right below the two. If you wish, I can find some audio examples where I was experimenting with precisely this.
>
> Petr
>
Thanks Petr,

I'd very much like to hear your audio examples. Just so I understand what you're driving at, because phi contains interesting properties like the fact that it is the only number where its inverse is the same as itself minus 1, then the worlds of intervals and beats become united? Yes I would definitely like to hear this in action. (For the record, I'm not saying that these numbers have a 'common frequency' but that this is the frequency...but that is another story).

-Rick

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "rick_ballan" <rick_ballan@> wrote:
>
> > I was following the Wolfram thread you posted and out of curiosity >went to the intro where it started with something like "300 years ago >science discovered that mathematical equations could be used to >describe the natural world". But this is a terrible historical >anachronism, inaccurate by about 2200 years....
> >... Relating back to the chapter you posted, the Fibbonachi series is >a subset of the natural numbers, which means that superimposing waves >of frequencies 1,2,3,5,8,13... Being a painter I use the golden mean >all the time. But in attempting to bring music and art together, I >tried for years to find a musical meaning for it and had to conclude >that it was all just "Phi in the sky" (boom boom). In other words, it >was music which put maths and science on the map, not the other way >around....
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> already the old Greeks and Romans used that series in architecture, alike:
> http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#parthenon
>
> then later it got even applied to
> http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#music
>
> attend also the
> http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html#muslinks
>
> bye
> A.S.
>
Sorry Andreas but these discoveries of the golden mean under every stone in the ancient world have ended up being a 19th century myth. See for instance 'The Golden Ratio' by Mario Livio.

Rick.

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

>...but
some claims among
> these
alleged
> discoveries of the golden mean under every stone in the
> ancient world have ended up being a 19th century myth.
> See for instance 'The Golden Ratio' by Mario Livio.

Hi Rick,
yes in deed,
i'm aware of and agree with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Livio
's rebut of the unduly 19th-century canards:
http://plus.maths.org/issue22/features/golden/
http://plus.maths.org/issue22/reviews/book2/

Some more general reviews can be found under:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0767908163/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0743258207&itm=1#TABS
asks in the Synopsis:
"What do Bach's compositions, Rubik's Cube, the way we choose our mates, and the physics of subatomic particles have in common? "

...all that problems yield to...'an equation couldn't be solved'...

an 'Anonymous' writer reccomends Livio's book as:
"It is probably the first layman-level science book to take on group theory and its many related fields, and it does so with aplomb.

bye
A.S.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wikipedia concerning sense of "Absolute Pitch" AKA "Perfect Pitch"
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_pitch

"A)   Absolute pitch sense appears to be influenced by cultural exposure to music, especially in the familiarization of the equal-tempered C-major scale. Most of the absolute listeners that were tested in this respect identified the C-major tones more reliably and, except for B, more quickly than the five "black key" tones,[14] which corresponds to the higher prevalence of these tones in ordinary musical experience. One study of Dutch non-musicians also
demonstrated a bias toward using C-major tones in ordinary speech, especially on syllables related to emphasis."

   This may explain why certain people "have a
tendency to hear
anything near A tone as nothing but an A tone", for example: they have trained their minds to summarize most everything (even random noises like car horns) into basic diatonic scales.
_______________________________________________________
Also from wikipedia

"The 'unlearning theory', first proposed by Abraham,[43] has recently been revived by developmental psychologists who argue that every person possesses absolute pitch (as a mode of perceptual processing) as an infant, but that a shift in cognitive processing styles (from local, absolute processing to global, relational processing) causes most people to unlearn it; or, at least, causes children with musical training to discard absolute pitch as they learn to identify musical intervals."
_______________________________________________________
   My take on this is that, by learning 12TET, we have taught ourselves to recognize "perfect pitch" in the context of if they match
12TET INTERVALS
rather than the purity of actual tones (in unison IE without intervals) vs. where our basilar membranes can process them most clearly.  
________________________________________________________________
   I showed the same two tones to my non-musically trained girlfriend and two of my non-musically trained friends (blind-testing: didn't tell them which was which)...and every single time they taught middle-C * 1.257 sounded better than middle-C * 5/4 (1.25)!!!   Again, forget the literature, try the experiment for yourself and only then tell me how you "know it sounds". :-)
************************************************************************************
    NOW I'm just waiting for a person on here who has actually bother to test this trick on their own ears and honestly tell me what they hear (instead of letting numerous studies decide for them what is right for
their ears)...I'm STILL betting most people who actually try the test will consider 1.257 more relaxed/resolved sounding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  BTW, here's yet another example
A) My PHI scale tuned to the nearest JI intervals (done "by math")
http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav

B) My PHI scale tuned to the nearest resolve-sounding notes (determined by testing several nearby notes in unison IE without intervals and taking the pure results and then choosing among them for which ones best match the intervals..done "by ear")
http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav

  Before you flood me with e-mails of scientific research...I'd appreciate it if you tell me how the above two example sound vis a vis each other...then if you're still not satisfied with my theory after listening, you can flood me with papers.
:-D

-Michael

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
P.S
--Do you have classical "absolute pitch" though or do you simply have a

--good sense of relative pitch and a decent tonal memory?

   For the record...I don't think my view is THAT subjective nor do I
think I have
"genetic perfect pitch".  I have simply taught myself, I believe, NOT
to think of everything in terms of intervals and it gives me a much clearer
sense of how easily my brain is processing a tone vs. how much it
related to certain intervals. 
  
I also swear that since I do so much micro-tonal composing
(19TET, 31TET, 10TET (/w sine waves), Wilson's scales, my own
scales...) that I've taught my mind to take tones for themselves rather
than in reference to any particular scale IE perhaps I've reversed some
of the
"unlearning of perfect pitch".  I don't even compose in 12TET anymore:
in fact any time I try I find myself looking for tones that exist
between 12TET tones to fit my moods!  Actually to me, for example, Wilson's scales or my own, for example, often sound much purer to my ears than 12TET.

--- On Sat, 4/4/09, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 11:31 AM

Do you have classical "absolute pitch" though or do you simply have a
good sense of relative pitch and a decent tonal memory? I am AP1 and
for me, hearing 415 Hz as anything except Ab is extremely difficult.
I've actually been working on hearing notes as adjacent notes (A as Ab
and Ab as A and so on), but I feel intuitively like it's going to
screw me up when I'm trying to just play
A440.

-Mike

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@chello.cz> wrote:
> Max wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you might be gifted of "perfect pitch"....
>
> I think what Michael is describing is pretty much a matter of subjective
> evaluation. I myself can very clearly distinguish absolute pitches but
> anyway I think many people simply hear what they „wish to hear“.
> Considering, for instance, the example of transposing music into different
> keys, I could say that it depends on two things: A) what instruments and
> what tuning you use, B) where you set your A (or C or whatever). For
> example, I can quite happily convince myself that now the A4 is at 440Hz and
> in another piece the A4 is at 415Hz (serious problems start arising when the
> A gets
outside this range to about 400Hz or 460Hz or some such). Let’s take
> an example of some music played in Pythagorean tuning in the key of C major
> at the standard pitch (i.e. A4 = 440Hz).If this was played on an old piano
> or on a harpsichord and if it was harmonically similar to some Baroque
> music, then I would very quickly ask: „Hey, isn’t it actually Db played in a
> well temperament?“ And from then on, I may také a completely different view
> on the piece even though I previously considered it to be C. And suddenly, I
> may say: „So it’s pretty full of accidentals“. But if the same piece of
> music was played on instruments whose tuning I am completely unsure about, I
> would probably consider it to be C played in Pythagorean because it’s the
> way I’m used to recognizing pitches or chords. Likewise, if I hear music in
> B major played in a meantone-like tuning
with older instruments, I’ll
> probably think it should be C major with an A4 of about 415Hz, while if the
> same piece in the same tuning were played on a modern Steinway grand or
> something, I would probably consider it more „tonally distant“ because I
> would call it B major. But generally, it’s usually okay for me to recognize
> pitches with the A4 being 440Hz and it’s more difficult for me when I have
> to intentionally convince myself to choose something else as the A.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
  tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning
group.
  tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
  tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
  tuning-digest@...m - set group to send daily digests.
  tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
  tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
Yahoo! Groups Links

--Well spotted,
--because only combinations of at least two different frequencies
--can produce any
--http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Consonance_ and_dissonance
--on the basilar-membrane.

     Well, that's pretty much the definition of a difference tone.  But, who's to say the difference tone is the only tone you hear?  I'm nearly positive it is not.  I'm confident you hear BOTH the difference tone AND the original tones.  Surely if you play 150hz and 250hz and 400hz sounds, you don't only hear the 100hz and 150hz difference tones...   The only example I can think of where the difference tone IS the only tone you hear is the harmonic series itself...which has a constant
difference tone between any two overtones in sequence in it.  

*****************************
   And, excuse my frustration, does anyone even care about sound examples any more (or is math somehow more important than actually listening to real-world examples?!

BTW, here's an
A) My PHI scale tuned to the nearest JI intervals (done "by math")
http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav

B)
My PHI scale tuned to the nearest resolved-sounding notes (determined by
testing several nearby notes in UNISON IE WITHOUT INTERVALS and taking
the pure results and then choosing among them for which ones best match
the intervals..done "by ear")
http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav

    Try listening to those and then tell me if you still believe, that constant difference tones alone (ALA in JI) explain/solve everything.  I'm pretty sure you'll find, as I did, that the tones that sound relaxed by themselves IE in unison in the second example make a huge difference.

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/5/09, Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...> wrote:

From: Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 8:49 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, "Claudio Di Veroli" <dvc@...> wrote:

> Throughout the human spectrum of frequencies, I never spotted a

> frequency that sounded dissonant to me.

Well spotted,

because only combinations of at least two different frquencies

can produce any

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Consonance_ and_dissonance

on the basilar-membrane.

bye

A.S.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Claudio Di Veroli" <dvc@...> wrote:
>
> Yes we all have known this since we first opened a book in musical acoustics

> But some members of the list,.., have put even this in doubt.
>
>>>"Claudio Di Veroli" <dvc@> wrote:
>
>> Throughout the human spectrum of frequencies, I never spotted a
>> frequency that sounded dissonant to me.
>
What about AP possessors alike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciano_Pavarotti
in
http://www.jackgrassel.com/pages/perfect_pitch.html
Quote:
"One time I was to accompany Luciano Pavarotti on classical guitar at
one of his concerts. I knew that he specified in his contract that the
orchestra needed to tune to A 438. Before Luciano appeared at the
rehearsal, I heard the oboist produce an A 440 to tune the orchestra.
I didn't say anything and kept my guitar tuned to A 438.
(The "Perfect Pitch" person usually learns to keep his mouth shut
since he's in the minority)
Mr. Pavarotti came out and proceeded to start the rehearsal.
After a few bars, he stopped the orchestra and reprimanded the oboist
for tuning the orchestra to A 440.
The oboist played an A 440 and said it was A 438. Then Luciano sang a
perfect A 438, and had the orchestra tune to him."

Conclusion:
Appearently Pavarotti considered the plain single frequency 438Hz
as more consonant than the 2Hz higher 440Hz one.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/01/arts/music-singers-join-in-a-lament-about-rising-pitch.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

bye
A.S.

Andreas wrote:

> Appearently Pavarotti considered the plain single frequency 438Hz
> as more consonant than the 2Hz higher 440Hz one.

Let me say, first of all, that the passage you quote doesn't make me reach any particular conclusion about 438Hz being more consonant for Pavarotti than 440Hz. The text doesn't say that the reason for Pavarotti demanding tuning to 438Hz was that he found it more "pleasing to his ear" than 440Hz. Secondly, don't forget that in some countries, even about 20 years ago, it was quite "frequent" to tune instruments to an A4 of about 435Hz (don't know about Italy, but generally, people usually prefer what they were used to in their childhood or so). For another thing, I personally DO like 438Hz more than 440Hz -- you know why? Because I like lower pitches. If, for example, I hear something like 460Hz when listening to "early music", then saying that "the pitch has been lowered so 460Hz is now a B4" is fine with me even though I "internally" think of it as a Bb instead of a B, while saying "the pitch has been raised so 460Hz is now an A4" makes me almost angry.

Finally, let me say something about my own experiments. Some of you may know that I have, during a few years of being heavily involved in that topic, made quite a bunch of "quasi-meantone" irregular temperaments with the aim of many intervals using precisely specified beat rates, in order the scales were easily tunable without electronic equipment. To get various "configurations" of beat rate possibilities, I often used different starting pitches, like an A4 of 438Hz for one scale, 437Hz for another one, 441Hz for another one, 430Hz for another one, 420Hz for another one, and many others. One day, I decided to use an A4 of 450Hz. I calculated the ratios from the specified beat rates, wrote them into Scala and played in the tuning for a while. And what happened? After about half an hour of improvising, I was so angry about the high A that I finally decided to use a different scale degree for A -- namely the one which originaly should have meant G, which was about 406Hz (even though I "internally" heard it as a G#). :-D Of course, by doing this, I eventually turned the Eb..G# chain of fifths to F..A#.

Petr

Andreas Sparschuh wrote:

> Conclusion:
> Appearently Pavarotti considered the plain single frequency 438Hz
> as more consonant than the 2Hz higher 440Hz one.

No. He preferred it for some reason. There was nothing in your quote about consonance.

> http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/01/arts/music-singers-join-in-a-lament-about-rising-pitch.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Yes, singers object to rising pitch. Especially tenors who are expected to hit notes at the top of their range.

Graham

My take on this is that, by learning 12TET, we have taught ourselves to
recognize "perfect pitch" in the context of if they match 12TET INTERVALS
rather than the purity of actual tones (in unison IE without intervals) vs.
where our basilar membranes can process them most clearly.

I see that you insist once and again in stating ideas that run contrary to
centuries of evidence.
To put it mildly, this is not a good way to progress towards knowledge.
[In this particular case, and as so many people in this list know but
probably no longer bother to reply, ever since the end of the 16th century,
when both meantone and equal temperament were in use, singers have been
observed to have the tendency to shift the tuning trying to adjust and
singing pure intervals, NOT following the temperaments around them.]

Regards

Claudio
http://temper.braybaroque.ie

--I see that
you insist once and again in stating ideas that run contrary
to centuries of --evidence.
    Evidence or compliance?  The one thing that amazes me on this list more than anything is the constant attitude "because it's always been done that way" without saying why or giving counter-examples.   You may think my theories are nuts...but at least I can manage sound-examples as comparisons and put my ears where my mouth is (no Mike Tyson references needed, please). :-D

--singers have been observed to have
the tendency to shift the tuning trying to adjust and --singing pure intervals,
NOT following the temperaments around them.]

   
So tell me then...why does that say anything more than that pure intervals are the ones most easily produced by singing?   For about the 100th time, I'm NOT talking about scales ideal/convenient singing but for composition...and, for the record, those earlier examples in the thread about how conductors and singers choose to tune lower vs. higher were not mine or even vaguely related to my point: aligning tones to the basilar membrane in addition to finding pleasantly beating (as opposed to excessively beating) intervals.

  Surely people don't use calculus because it's "easier to produce", "more obvious", "more natural" than algebra...so why does music theory all too often have to be as such (as is which the case of your "singers tend to most easily..." example)?

    It seems obvious to me music has fallen through in many ways: while science and mathematics keeps on becoming exponentially more advanced,
music theory so often becomes grounded to only "what's obvious from what follow before".   An extreme counter-example is quantum theory in physics, which has many ideas and theories toward it which are near polar opposites.

   Why do very few common people care about mean-tone tunings or JI, for example (even when many synthesizers/keyboards come with such tunings as native options)?   I swear it because such a vast majority of people can't hear that much of a difference between either of them and 12TET.  Ask the average singer subconsciously singing JI and they may well still think he/she is singing 12TET.

  So what are we achieving by "slightly polishing" 12TET or using tonality diamonds to explain what we may well have been singing in since Kindergarten?   Not nearly as much as we can, IMVHO. 
    Personally I consider the works of Sethares and Wilson more
closely equivalent to pre-calculus in a world where 12TET is more analogous to pre-algebra (another analogy: most business math is also pre-algebra...as a metaphor for the rather complacent recording industry).  Wilson's MOS scales, for example, are not "naturally rounded to by singers" and, even though they are based on o-tonal and u-tonal relationships, can do things like allow 9-notes-per-octave while still guiding the mind to feel relaxed / "have a good idea what's coming up next", even if the degree of consonance is significantly less than JI for such large scales.

    So what would be the equivalent of calculus to music?  I'm pretty sure it would not come so naturally as something based on the same harmonic series evident in virtually all acoustic instruments. 

   So why solve a problem already well solved in history...why not instead search for the solution to a larger problem?  Pushing past
the limitation of beats and making beats work in a way so a 7 to 9-note-per-octave chord is possible, researching  things beyond intervals like how notes in unison at different tones are received by the ears and mind (ultimately MRI scans between different people could even give some pointers).

   NO, I'm not saying I have the solution, but I am giving myself at least some credit for searching for it instead of sitting on my laurels.  There's nothing "PHI in the sky" about it...already I had a brief e-mail exchange with Sethares and says some of the latest research (by a researcher of the last name "Cook") use symmetry to build scales that, even in Sethares' opinion, have several consonance advantages over his own consonance curves (and his curves derive JI assuming the harmonic series timbre).  If that doesn't at least make some people think "therefore...there must be other ways to achieve consonance beyond the
JI/dyadic consonance model"...I don't know what will...maybe some of us will just have to agree to disagree.

--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 6:33 PM

 My take on this is that, by learning 12TET, we have taught ourselves
to recognize "perfect pitch" in the context of if they match 12TET INTERVALS
rather than the purity of actual tones (in unison IE without intervals) vs.
where our basilar membranes can process them most clearly.   
 
I see that
you insist once and again in stating ideas that run contrary
to centuries of evidence.
To put it
mildly, this is not a good way to progress towards knowledge.
[In this
particular case, and as so many people in this list know but probably no
longer bother to reply, ever since the end of the 16th century, when both
meantone and equal temperament were in use, singers have been observed to have
the tendency to shift the tuning trying to adjust and singing pure intervals,
NOT following the temperaments around them.]
 
Regards
 
Claudio
http://temper. braybaroque. ie

djtrancendance@... wrote:

> So what are we achieving by "slightly polishing" 12TET or
> using tonality diamonds to explain what we may well have
> been singing in since Kindergarten? Not nearly as much
<snip>

You'll have to explain to us how we've been singing in tonality diamonds since kindergarten.

> NO, I'm not saying I have the solution, but I am giving
> myself at least some credit for searching for it instead
> of sitting on my laurels. There's nothing "PHI in the
> sky" about it...already I had a brief e-mail exchange
> with Sethares and says some of the latest research (by a
> researcher of the last name "Cook") use symmetry to build
> scales that, even in Sethares' opinion, have several
> consonance advantages over his own consonance curves (and
> his curves derive JI assuming the harmonic series
> timbre). If that doesn't at least make some people think
> "therefore...there must be other ways to achieve
> consonance beyond the JI/dyadic consonance model"...I
> don't know what will...maybe some of us will just have to
> agree to disagree.

Cook's work was discussed on the list about a fortnight ago. Do you remember?

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
> You may think my theories are nuts...but at least I can manage
> sound-examples as comparisons and put my ears where my mouth is
> (no Mike Tyson references needed, please). :-D

So you have a theory now? Do tell. Set yourself a goal of
writing 3 sentences max.

-Carl

trancedance wrote:
>--I see that you insist once and again in stating ideas that run contrary
to centuries of --evidence.
> Evidence or compliance? The one thing that amazes me on this list more
than anything is the constant attitude "because it's always been done that
way" without saying why or giving counter-examples. You may think my
theories are nuts...but at least I can manage sound-examples as comparisons
and put my ears where my mouth is (no Mike Tyson references needed, please).
:-D
>--singers have been observed to have the tendency to shift the tuning
trying to adjust and --singing pure intervals, NOT following the
temperaments around them.]
> So tell me then...why does that say anything more than that pure
intervals are the ones most easily produced by singing? For about the
100th time, I'm NOT talking about scales ideal/convenient singing but for
composition...and, for the record, those earlier examples in the thread
about how conductors and singers choose to tune ....
______________________________________________________

I apologise to the list for the additional "noise" my post has caused.
I had already decided some time ago that it was futile to answer posts from
djtrancendance@...
Thought this time I could help him to understand.
I was wrong obviously: one should not help a person who does not wish to get
help.

Claudio

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Petr Parízek <p.parizek@...> wrote:

> To get various "configurations" of beat rate possibilities, I often
> used different starting pitches, like an A4 of 438Hz for one scale,
> 437Hz for another one, 441Hz for another one, 430Hz for another one, > 420Hz for another one, and many others. One day, I decided to use an > A4 of 450Hz.

Hi Petr,
among that absolute pitches personally i do prefer at the moment

a" := 438Hz

the most:
/tuning/topicId_19159.html#76811

step successive around the cirlce
in partially duodecimes ~3/1 up-wards
and in pure octaves 2/1 down-wards

A: 219 438Hz
E: 164 328 656 (< 657=3*A)
B: 491 (< 492=3*E)
F# 23 46 92 184 368 736 1472 (< 1473=3*B)
C# 69 = 3*F#
G# (13 26 52 104 208 416<)415(< 414 207 = 3*C#)
Eb 39 = 3*13
Bb 117 = 3*39
F: 175 330 (< 351 = 3*Bb)
C: 131 262 524 (< 525 = 3*F)
G: 98 196 392 (< 393 = 3*C)
D: (73 146 292 <) 293 (< 294 = 3*98)
A: 219 = 3*73

that yields
when lined up ascending in chromatically order
on the octave inbetween middle- and tenor-C for the 12 keys:

C' 262 'middle_C4
C# 276
D' 293
Eb 312
E' 328
F' 350
F# 368
G' 392
G# 415
A' 438 Hz Pavarotti's choice
Bb 468
B' 491
c" 524 'tenor_C'

that dozen absolute-pitches correspond in
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/scala/scl_format.html
to 12 eqivalent ratios:

!Pavarotti_438Hz.scl
!Proposal compiled by A.Sparschuh for easier singing at lowered pitch
!
adjust absolute-pitch @ Luciano Pavarotti's preference 438Hz
!
12
!
138/131 ! C#
293/262 ! D
156/131 ! Eb
164/131 ! E
175/131 ! F
184/131 ! F#
196/131 ! G
415/262 ! G#
219/131 ! A3/C3 or one octave aboth higher 438Hz/262Hz = A4/C4
234/131 ! Bb
491/262 ! B
2/1 ! c'
!

Quest:
How sounds that in yours ears ?

bye
A.S.

--You'll have to explain to us how we've been singing in
--tonality diamonds since kindergarten.
   I never said that, I'm saying tuning seems to have nasty habit of using overly complex constructs to explain fairly simple things.  I was referring to the use of tonality diamonds to explain "singers'" 5-limit JI...which seems naturally sang by many people as a "natural approximation", even from a very young age. 

--Cook's work was discussed on the list about a fortnight ago.
--Do you remember?
   Admittedly, no, though I have been looking for info on it.  Do you have a link to the specific message?

--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Graham Breed <gbreed@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Graham Breed <gbreed@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 10:21 PM

djtrancendance@ yahoo.com wrote:

> So what are we achieving by "slightly polishing" 12TET or

> using tonality diamonds to explain what we may well have

> been singing in since Kindergarten? Not nearly as much

<snip>

You'll have to explain to us how we've been singing in

tonality diamonds since kindergarten.

> NO, I'm not saying I have the solution, but I am giving

> myself at least some credit for searching for it instead

> of sitting on my laurels. There's nothing "PHI in the

> sky" about it...already I had a brief e-mail exchange

> with Sethares and says some of the latest research (by a

> researcher of the last name "Cook") use symmetry to build

> scales that, even in Sethares' opinion, have several

> consonance advantages over his own consonance curves (and

> his curves derive JI assuming the harmonic series

> timbre). If that doesn't at least make some people think

> "therefore.. .there must be other ways to achieve

> consonance beyond the JI/dyadic consonance model"...I

> don't know what will...maybe some of us will just have to

> agree to disagree.

Cook's work was discussed on the list about a fortnight ago.

Do you remember?

Graham

--I
apologise to the list for the additional "noise" my post has
caused.
--I had
already decided some time ago that it was futile to answer posts --from
djtrancendance@ yahoo.com
--Thought this time I could help him to
understand.
--I was
wrong obviously: one should not help a person who does not --wish to get
help.
    If you think forcing someone to take your opinion is help, maybe it's about time you realize I'm not, say, your grandson or employee.  It seems obvious to me you're more into saying "I'm right, you're wrong, period"...than intelligent argument or realizing just because someone disagrees does NOT means they are not listening.   

Back to tuning, I still stand firmly by my statement
"You may think my theories are nuts...but at least
I can manage sound-examples as comparisons and put my ears where my mouth is"
because it seems ridiculous when contemplating any form of art to say "a is useful and b is not like a therefore b must be useless".  There are no wrongs and rights in tuning, IMVHO, simply different methods which work for different people: the only thing that's really wrong in the art world is something which only pleases its creator and not even a small but dedicated following.

  Many people I know hate the sound of Wilson's scales or JI, or conversely like JI far more than 12TET...and anyone contributing to anything with any sort of following should at least have the right to some dignity for it IMVHO and not be told to "respect others by shooting your efforts in the foot".   

   Hopefully some of the rest of you can relate to this struggle.

-Michael

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 4:41 AM

trancedance
wrote:
>--I see that you insist once and
again in stating ideas that run contrary to centuries of --evidence.
>    Evidence or compliance?  The
one thing that amazes me on this list more than anything is the constant
attitude "because it's always been done that way" without saying why or giving
counter-examples.   You may think my theories are nuts...but at least
I can manage sound-examples as comparisons and put my ears where my mouth is (no
Mike Tyson references needed, please).
:-D
>--singers have been observed to have the tendency
to shift the tuning trying to adjust and --singing pure intervals, NOT following
the temperaments around them.]
>    So tell me then...why does that say
anything more than that pure intervals are the ones most easily produced by
singing?   For about the 100th time, I'm NOT talking about scales
ideal/convenient singing but for composition. ..and, for the record, those
earlier examples in the thread about how conductors and singers choose to tune
....
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ______
 
I
apologise to the list for the additional "noise" my post has
caused.
I had
already decided some time ago that it was futile to answer posts from
djtrancendance@ yahoo.com
Thought this time I could help him to
understand.
I was
wrong obviously: one should not help a person who does not wish to get
help.
 
Claudio
 

"So you have a theory now? Do tell. Set yourself a goal of

writing 3 sentences max."

Ok here goes for the 3 sentence theory explanation...
-------------------------
1) Difference tones can work toward consonance in different way...not just in one-to-one relationship between overtones in the harmonic series, but in other symmetries (such as noble number-based scale) as well.
2) Obviously, you can't let frequencies get too close when doing this; you can bend past the critical band too far as note closeness and even the most harmonically pleasing beating will sound bad if too intense.
3) Even the most ratio proportionate scale can sound tense/bent...and all notes in a scale should be tested in unison in areas near the original scale (+/- a few cents) to be swapped the most relaxed nearby tone.
-------------------------
For an example of 3) try the following
#1) http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav
      (applying 3) by using substitute
tones tested to sound relaxed in unison)
#2) http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav
      (using a straight JI approximate of the PHI scale...where the highest ratio between any two consecutive tones in the scale is 21/20).

Still interested, or have I already said too much?.... :-D

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/6/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 10:38 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, djtrancendance@ ... wrote:

> You may think my theories are nuts...but at least I can manage

> sound-examples as comparisons and put my ears where my mouth is

> (no Mike Tyson references needed, please). :-D

So you have a theory now? Do tell. Set yourself a goal of

writing 3 sentences max.

-Carl

Hi Michael,

>> "So you have a theory now? Do tell. Set yourself a goal of
>> writing 3 sentences max."

It's sometimes hard to tell what you're quoting from what
you've written. You used to put dashes in front of the first
two lines or something, but here there were no quote markings,
so I added >>s. My advice to make your posts most easily
readable by the most list members is to put something like
angle brackets in front of quotes. Here's a reference on
that (first google hit for "e-mail quoting":
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~tameyer/writing/quoting.html

If your mail client supports it, you can also used
"format=flowed" quoting. Here's a page about that:
http://joeclark.org/ffaq.html

> Ok here goes for the 3 sentence theory explanation...
> -------------------------
> 1) Difference tones can work toward consonance in different
> way...not just in one-to-one relationship between overtones
> in the harmonic series, but in other symmetries (such as noble
> number-based scale) as well.

So far, you haven't convinced me that difference tones have
anything to do with consonance even in one way -- let alone
a different way. If you have evidence, now would be the
time to present it.

> 2) Obviously, you can't let frequencies get too close when
> doing this; you can bend past the critical band too far as
> note closeness and even the most harmonically pleasing beating
> will sound bad if too intense.

So you don't dispute critical band roughness. OK, moving on...

> 3) Even the most ratio proportionate scale can sound
> tense/bent...and all notes in a scale should be tested in
> unison in areas near the original scale (+/- a few cents)
> to be swapped the most relaxed nearby tone.

I'm not sure what this means. But more below...

> For an example of 3) try the following
> #1) http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav
>       (applying 3) by using substitute
> tones tested to sound relaxed in unison)

Audio examples are always nice, but it would be easier to
start with a chord that is "ratio proportionate" but still
sounds "tense", and another nearby chord (whose notes differ
from those in the first chord by no more than a "few cents")
that sounds "relaxed".

Provided you can furnish several such chord pairs, you would
have evidence that 'ratio proportionateness' doesn't predict
consonance. But that still wouldn't be a constructive
theory. You'd need to present something that *does* predict
consonance.

> #2) http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav
>       (using a straight JI approximate of the PHI scale...where
> the highest ratio between any two consecutive tones in the scale
> is 21/20).

I think you're saying that this tuning of the example sounds
more tense than the first tuning of it, and that this one
uses rational numbers whereas the first one uses your phi
scale. Is that correct?

Assuming so, there are two reasons it isn't evidence for or
against the idea that phi explains consonance better than JI.
First, if you compose a musical example in one tuning, it can
be biased to work better in that tuning than in other tunings.
Second (more generally), you have to show what scales were used
and analyze each piece of music for its simultaneities, and
show that the rational scale really does produce JI chords in
the piece, and that the phi scale doesn't produce near-JI
chords.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> --I
> apologise to the list for the additional "noise" my post has
> caused.
> --I had
> already decided some time ago that it was futile to answer posts --from
> djtrancendance@ yahoo.com
> --Thought this time I could help him to
> understand.
> --I was
> wrong obviously: one should not help a person who does not --wish to get
> help.
> If you think forcing someone to take your opinion is help, maybe it's about time you realize I'm not, say, your grandson or employee. It seems obvious to me you're more into saying "I'm right, you're wrong, period"...than intelligent argument or realizing just because someone disagrees does NOT means they are not listening.
>
> Back to tuning, I still stand firmly by my statement
> "You may think my theories are nuts...but at least
> I can manage sound-examples as comparisons and put my ears where my mouth is"
> because it seems ridiculous when contemplating any form of art to say "a is useful and b is not like a therefore b must be useless". There are no wrongs and rights in tuning, IMVHO, simply different methods which work for different people: the only thing that's really wrong in the art world is something which only pleases its creator and not even a small but dedicated following.
>
> Many people I know hate the sound of Wilson's scales or JI, or conversely like JI far more than 12TET...and anyone contributing to anything with any sort of following should at least have the right to some dignity for it IMVHO and not be told to "respect others by shooting your efforts in the foot".
>
> Hopefully some of the rest of you can relate to this struggle.
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
>
> --- On Tue, 4/7/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...> wrote:
>
> From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>
> Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 4:41 AM
>
>
>Michael,

When you make statements such as "It seems obvious to me you're more into saying "I'm right, you're wrong, period"", they suffer from the problem that they are said in the SENSE that you are right and we are all wrong. It is like saying "everything is a matter of opinion" i.e. there are no common facts, which A) if it IS true then it is an absolute fact (and the statement is hypocritical), or B) it too is a matter of opinion and therefore subject to debate i.e it now MUST admit that the opposite statement "not everything is a matter of opinion" is itself a valid opinion, and the statement is hypocritical once again). Kapish?
>
>And it is not a mistake that the Ancient Greek word harmonia meant simultaneously musical tuning, social and cosmic order, justice, agreement b/w soul and body, thought and actions (the absence of hypocrisy) etc etc. So there are rights and wrongs in tuning after all. Bottom line, singing or playing out of tune is a form of bad manners.

-Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> trancedance
> wrote:
> >--I see that you insist once and
> again in stating ideas that run contrary to centuries of --evidence.
> > Evidence or compliance? The
> one thing that amazes me on this list more than anything is the constant
> attitude "because it's always been done that way" without saying why or giving
> counter-examples. You may think my theories are nuts...but at least
> I can manage sound-examples as comparisons and put my ears where my mouth is (no
> Mike Tyson references needed, please).
> :-D
> >--singers have been observed to have the tendency
> to shift the tuning trying to adjust and --singing pure intervals, NOT following
> the temperaments around them.]
> > So tell me then...why does that say
> anything more than that pure intervals are the ones most easily produced by
> singing? For about the 100th time, I'm NOT talking about scales
> ideal/convenient singing but for composition. ..and, for the record, those
> earlier examples in the thread about how conductors and singers choose to tune
> ....
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ______
>
> I
> apologise to the list for the additional "noise" my post has
> caused.
> I had
> already decided some time ago that it was futile to answer posts from
> djtrancendance@ yahoo.com
> Thought this time I could help him to
> understand.
> I was
> wrong obviously: one should not help a person who does not wish to get
> help.
>
> Claudio
>
>

-Provided you can furnish several such chord pairs, you would
-have evidence that 'ratio proportionate-ness' doesn't predict
-consonance.
   That wasn't my point, my point is while "straight line" ratio proportionate-ness (ALA the harmonic series) can of course predict consonance, other difference tone proportionalities can ALSO help ensure it.  Put it this way: viewing the harmonic series as artistically symmetrical/smooth/consistent is like seeing it as a line in algebra while curved-difference tones like the ones I use in my scales is like seeing the constantly increasing slope/"derivative" of one side of a parabola as symmetrical/smooth/consistent.  It's just another way to view a different equivalent of harmonic (call it "curve-onic" IE "curved harmonic" or whatever you'd like).

-But that still wouldn't be a constructive
-theory. You'd need to
present something that *does* predict
-consonance.

http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/PHITRIADS.wav

    OK, these are almost direct equivalents of the JI-type triads, but done with all these new ideas
A)  Uses PHI as a basis for difference tones  (proof of use of alternative difference tones than the harmonic series to make relaxed sounding tones).  It only tempers from the PHI scale by a few cents to comply with part C.
     Look in particular at how harmonic the beating in the last chord sounds (more proof, hopefully, that alternative proportional difference tones such as noble number produced ones can inch closer within the critical band without as many problems, often, as harmonic, series based scales have).

B) In general, very few of the chords beat and those that do (esp. the last one) still manage so beat in a fairly subtle way: thus showing how these scales obey critical-band roughness (P&L and Helmholtz) and
don't do things like need to swap very closely spaced note to get pure sounding intervals (ALA the way things like 53TET 'emulating' adaptive JI often need to do).  This scale uses 7 notes as a subset of my 12-tone PHI scale.

C) The above example notes that sound best in unison to increase sense of balance ("tempered" plus or minus a few cents from the actual PHI scale)

    Any further ideas/questions?  I'm actually hoping for criticism of either how to improve the scale theories and/or what other tests to perform on it.
 
-Michael

************************************************************************************************

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for
Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 8:34 PM

Hi Michael,

>> "So you have a theory now? Do tell. Set yourself a goal of

>> writing 3 sentences max."

It's sometimes hard to tell what you're quoting from what

you've written. You used to put dashes in front of the first

two lines or something, but here there were no quote markings,

so I added >>s. My advice to make your posts most easily

readable by the most list members is to put something like

angle brackets in front of quotes. Here's a reference on

that (first google hit for "e-mail quoting":

http://www.massey. ac.nz/~tameyer/ writing/quoting. html

If your mail client supports it, you can also used

"format=flowed" quoting. Here's a page about that:

http://joeclark. org/ffaq. html

> Ok here goes for the 3 sentence theory explanation. ..

> ------------ --------- ----

> 1) Difference tones can work toward consonance in different

> way...not just in one-to-one relationship between overtones

> in the harmonic series, but in other symmetries (such as noble

> number-based scale) as well.

So far, you haven't convinced me that difference tones have

anything to do with consonance even in one way -- let alone

a different way. If you have evidence, now would be the

time to present it.

> 2) Obviously, you can't let frequencies get too close when

> doing this; you can bend past the critical band too far as

> note closeness and even the most harmonically pleasing beating

> will sound bad if too intense.

So you don't dispute critical band roughness. OK, moving on...

> 3) Even the most ratio proportionate scale can sound

> tense/bent.. .and all notes in a scale should be tested in

> unison in areas near the original scale (+/- a few cents)

> to be swapped the most relaxed nearby tone.

I'm not sure what this means. But more below...

> For an example of 3) try the following

> #1) http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ 2basilarPHI. wav

> (applying 3) by using substitute

> tones tested to sound relaxed in unison)

Audio examples are always nice, but it would be easier to

start with a chord that is "ratio proportionate" but still

sounds "tense", and another nearby chord (whose notes differ

from those in the first chord by no more than a "few cents")

that sounds "relaxed".

Provided you can furnish several such chord pairs, you would

have evidence that 'ratio proportionateness' doesn't predict

consonance. But that still wouldn't be a constructive

theory. You'd need to present something that *does* predict

consonance.

> #2) http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ rationalPHI. wav

> (using a straight JI approximate of the PHI scale...where

> the highest ratio between any two consecutive tones in the scale

> is 21/20).

I think you're saying that this tuning of the example sounds

more tense than the first tuning of it, and that this one

uses rational numbers whereas the first one uses your phi

scale. Is that correct?

Assuming so, there are two reasons it isn't evidence for or

against the idea that phi explains consonance better than JI.

First, if you compose a musical example in one tuning, it can

be biased to work better in that tuning than in other tunings.

Second (more generally), you have to show what scales were used

and analyze each piece of music for its simultaneities, and

show that the rational scale really does produce JI chords in

the piece, and that the phi scale doesn't produce near-JI

chords.

-Carl

#2) http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav

>       (using a straight JI approximate of the PHI scale...where

> the highest ratio between any two consecutive tones in the scale

> is 21/20).

--I think you're saying that this tuning of the example sounds
---more tense than the first tuning of it,
   Yes, that's part of it...the idea is the first/other-example is more consonant because it tempers to notes that sound most relaxed when played in unison and not just in intervals (according to my ears).

--and that this one uses rational numbers whereas the first one uses --your phi scale. Is that correct?

    NONONONO....they both use tempered versions of the PHI scale; one tempered to JI, the other tempered to notes within 3 or so cents of the JI-tempered version that sound best to my ear in unison.  The idea is the first one is most aligned to the BASILAR membrane...it has nothing to do with PHI vs. non-PHI.

--Assuming so, there are two reasons it isn't evidence for or
--against the idea that phi explains consonance better than JI.
   I never said that, I said PHI can be used as an alternative IE a different way of resolving the problem of difference frequencies.

--First, if you compose a musical example in one tuning, it can
--be biased to work better in that tuning than in other tunings.
    Every single note in the two sound examples I gave is just a few cents off...thus comparing the two examples I gave is akin to comparing 12TET and diatonic JI (which are different by just a few cents for most tones).  I also actually composed the piece while switching between the two tunings to get something that sounds "best in both".

--and show that the rational scale really does produce JI chords in
--the piece, and that the phi scale doesn't produce near-JI
--chords.
    Again, I'm NOT comparing PHI versus non-PHI; both examples are tempered/estimated versions of the PHI scale (and estimated by about the same degree of error).

  But, yes, I get the point...the next example will be more obviously comparing estimates straight JI type triads ALA 5/7/9
between.
A) my scale tempered to the nearest JI estimate
B) my scale tempered to the basilar membrane/"relaxed unison tones"
C) JI chords
  Sound like a good way to go, or do you have any more suggestions?

-Michael

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 8:34 PM

Hi Michael,

>> "So you have a theory now? Do tell. Set yourself a goal of

>> writing 3 sentences max."

It's sometimes hard to tell what you're quoting from what

you've written. You used to put dashes in front of the first

two lines or something, but here there were no quote markings,

so I added >>s. My advice to make your posts most easily

readable by the most list members is to put something like

angle brackets in front of quotes. Here's a reference on

that (first google hit for "e-mail quoting":

http://www.massey. ac.nz/~tameyer/ writing/quoting. html

If your mail client supports it, you can also used

"format=flowed" quoting. Here's a page about that:

http://joeclark. org/ffaq. html

> Ok here goes for the 3 sentence theory explanation. ..

> ------------ --------- ----

> 1) Difference tones can work toward consonance in different

> way...not just in one-to-one relationship between overtones

> in the harmonic series, but in other symmetries (such as noble

> number-based scale) as well.

So far, you haven't convinced me that difference tones have

anything to do with consonance even in one way -- let alone

a different way. If you have evidence, now would be the

time to present it.

> 2) Obviously, you can't let frequencies get too close when

> doing this; you can bend past the critical band too far as

> note closeness and even the most harmonically pleasing beating

> will sound bad if too intense.

So you don't dispute critical band roughness. OK, moving on...

> 3) Even the most ratio proportionate scale can sound

> tense/bent.. .and all notes in a scale should be tested in

> unison in areas near the original scale (+/- a few cents)

> to be swapped the most relaxed nearby tone.

I'm not sure what this means. But more below...

> For an example of 3) try the following

> #1) http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ 2basilarPHI. wav

>       (applying 3) by using substitute

> tones tested to sound relaxed in unison)

Audio examples are always nice, but it would be easier to

start with a chord that is "ratio proportionate" but still

sounds "tense", and another nearby chord (whose notes differ

from those in the first chord by no more than a "few cents")

that sounds "relaxed".

Provided you can furnish several such chord pairs, you would

have evidence that 'ratio proportionateness' doesn't predict

consonance. But that still wouldn't be a constructive

theory. You'd need to present something that *does* predict

consonance.

> #2) http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ rationalPHI. wav

>       (using a straight JI approximate of the PHI scale...where

> the highest ratio between any two consecutive tones in the scale

> is 21/20).

I think you're saying that this tuning of the example sounds

more tense than the first tuning of it, and that this one

uses rational numbers whereas the first one uses your phi

scale. Is that correct?

Assuming so, there are two reasons it isn't evidence for or

against the idea that phi explains consonance better than JI.

First, if you compose a musical example in one tuning, it can

be biased to work better in that tuning than in other tunings.

Second (more generally), you have to show what scales were used

and analyze each piece of music for its simultaneities, and

show that the rational scale really does produce JI chords in

the piece, and that the phi scale doesn't produce near-JI

chords.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
>
> -Provided you can furnish several such chord pairs, you would
> -have evidence that 'ratio proportionate-ness' doesn't predict
> -consonance.
>    That wasn't my point, my point is while "straight line" ratio
> proportionate-ness (ALA the harmonic series) can of course
> predict consonance, other difference tone proportionalities can
> ALSO help ensure it.

I have no idea what you mean, but unless you provide the type
of evidence I described, you're not going to convince anyone
with a brain that what you're saying is anything other than B.S.

>     Any further ideas/questions?

Yes. How did you manage to write another one of your famous
posts without responding to anything I said?

-Carl

Michael wrote:

>    I never said that, I said PHI can be used as an alternative
> IE a different way of resolving the problem of difference
> frequencies.

What, pray tell, is the "problem of difference frequencies"?

> But, yes, I get the point...the next example will be more
> obviously comparing estimates straight JI type triads ALA 5/7/9
> between.
> A) my scale tempered to the nearest JI estimate
> B) my scale tempered to the basilar membrane/"relaxed unison tones"
> C) JI chords
> Sound like a good way to go, or do you have any more suggestions?

I can't say, because I don't know what you're trying to show.
What's your hypothesis? That one of A), B), or C) will sound
better than the other two?

As already mentioned, audio examples are nice, but if you
want to do music theory you'll have to provide your results
in writing first and foremost. So far, most or all of your
audio files have been undocumented. The last time I asked
you to provide documentation you freaked out and finally
managed to post a .scl file, though it was no longer clear
what it was in reference to. If you want to do intonation
theory, you're going to have to be able to write things
like

"I think 1/1 5/4 3/2 is less consonant than 0 390.0 701.2
cents for the following reason..."

or else nobody can believably claim they have the slightest
idea what you're talking about.

-Carl

> -Provided you can furnish several such chord pairs, you would

> -have evidence that 'ratio proportionate- ness' doesn't predict

> -consonance.  -CARL/YOU

>    That wasn't my point, my point is while "straight line" ratio

> proportionate- ness (ALA the harmonic series) can of course

> predict consonance, other difference tone proportionalities can

> ALSO help ensure it. -ME

--"Yes. How did you manage to write another one of your famous

--posts without responding to anything I said?" -CARL/YOU

EXCUSE ME?! WHAT THE HECK DO YOU THINK I WROTE ABOVE
> -Provided you can furnish several such chord pairs, you would

> -have evidence that 'ratio proportionate- ness' doesn't predict

> -consonance. -YOU/CARL

     THAT WAS YOUR QUOTE AND BELOW WAS MY RESPONSE!!!

   As I read it, your whole bunch of comments basically lead down to a main point of your THINKING I was trying to prove that (again your quote the "ratio proportionate- ness doesn't predict consonance".  I'm saying (FOR ABOUT THE 4th TIME!) that YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT IS NOT MY GOAL.  However I DID describe my goal in relation to your statement as:
   "while one to one difference tone

proportionate- ness (ALA the fact a harmonic series of 100hz,200hz,300hz has a CONSTANT 100hz difference tone IE each difference tone = the last) can of course predict consonance, other difference tone proportionalities (IE one difference tone = 1.618 times another) can ALSO help ensure it." -ME

   That's ALMOST EXACTLY the same answer I gave you before and this time around with some pretty simple examples.  I don't know how much more detail you want....but certainly my giving an answer and then your BLATANTLY REFUSING to even acknowledge I gave one (regardless of if you liked it or not) is NOT being fair to myself or the discussion.  If you don't like my answer, for crying out loud, say WHY...don't just pretend I never answered, that's just asinine and does not help anything get done/compared/etc.

-Michael

--- On Wed, 4/8/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 8:29 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, djtrancendance@ ... wrote:

>

> -Provided you can furnish several such chord pairs, you would

> -have evidence that 'ratio proportionate- ness' doesn't predict

> -consonance.

>    That wasn't my point, my point is while "straight line" ratio

> proportionate- ness (ALA the harmonic series) can of course

> predict consonance, other difference tone proportionalities can

> ALSO help ensure it.

I have no idea what you mean, but unless you provide the type

of evidence I described, you're not going to convince anyone

with a brain that what you're saying is anything other than B.S.

>     Any further ideas/questions?

Yes. How did you manage to write another one of your famous

posts without responding to anything I said?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> your BLATANTLY REFUSING to even acknowledge I gave one

I see you're blaming me for something. Let me tell you
about what I see from where I'm sitting. You're an aspiring
music theorist, or appear to be one. You've thought it
appropriate to post a very high volume of messages to this
mailing list. Out of 1200 subscribers, you've posted
something like 1/6 of the messages in the past month. You
obviously think you have something important to say.

Then, several very knowledgeable people and accomplished
musicians and theorists have carefully reviewed your posts
and have given you personal handholding advice FOR FREE.
For over a year now. You can pay $100,000 to attend an
excellent university anywhere in the world, and in four
years you're unlikely to get access to the caliber of
people (Graham, Herman, Claudio, etc.) you're interacting
with here.

Your response has been to 1. ignore their advice, or
2. blame them for ignoring your "theories", 3. accuse them
or "the list" of having some sort of problem or another.

If I were you, I'd take a moment to think about this course
of events carefully, and maybe consider a new approach for
yourself.

Let me know what you think. Otherwise, like Claudio, I'm
not going to be carefully reviewing your posts or trying
to help any longer.

-Carl

>    I never said that, I said PHI can be used as an alternative

> IE a different way of resolving the problem of difference

> frequencies.

--What, pray tell, is the "problem of difference frequencies" ?
    Getting the beats to sound natural rather than eliminating them
(as doing so completely requires often more boring (IMVHO) scales with
less notes and less harmonic possibilities).   
   The "periodicity" of the
harmonic series is the most obvious example of ONE (but, my theory
says, not the only) way to solve the problem of difference frequencies.  For the third time, I am NOT trying to disprove that low number ratios don't lead to consonance, of course they DO, it's simply just NOT THE ONLY WAY to achieve that result.

*********************************************************************

> But, yes, I get the point...the next example will be more

> obviously comparing estimates straight JI type triads ALA 5/7/9

> between.

> A) my scale tempered to the nearest JI estimate

> B) my scale tempered to the basilar membrane/"relaxed unison tones"

> C) JI chords

> Sound like a good way to go, or do you have any more suggestions?

--"I can't say, because I don't know what you're trying to show.
--What's your hypothesis? That one of A), B), or C) will sound
--better than the other two?" -CARL
B)   Should sound comparable or better than the corresponding JI chords.  Far
as A)...it is virtually the same as B only with tones tweaked up/down a
few cents based solely on sense of relaxation to the ear...so A) should
be a bit worse than B).

So THE ORDER IS (you are listening here, I hope...)

B) and C): comparable quality between JI-triads and my basilar-optimized scale's triads...plus the ability to make certain special triads and chords not possible to do consonantly under JI.

A) a bit worse quality with my non-basilar optimized triads

My latest example of B is here:
http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/PHITRIADS.wav
It should be fairly easy to compare this with JI triads.
*************************************************

-As already mentioned, audio examples are nice, but if you
-want to do music theory you'll have to provide your results

-in writing first and foremost.

     Sorry about that, I agree it's a problem, I'm working on it. 
Some of it is rather tricky as some notes simply don't have
mathematical equivalents: for example; my scales have no 5th and no 2/1
octave. 

     It's like trying to compare the bohlen-pierce scale 1-to-1 against JI...it's a whole different way to arrange a scale. 
I'm trying to find a good compromise since, for sure, there is no way
to match JI notes to my "basilar scale" notes on a 1-to-1 basis.

-The last time I asked

-you to provide documentation you freaked out and finally
-managed to post a .scl file, though it was no longer clear
-what it was in reference to. 
     It took me a while because, again, you seem to want ONLY
whole-numbered fractional scales and my new scales are based on
irrational numbers and thus are tricky to reduce to whole-numbered
fractions without losing a lot of quality (at least to my ears). 
Again, it's like comparing the bohlen-pierce tritave scales to octave
scales: whole different ballgame in many ways. And...I'm still working on documentation.

--"I think 1/1 5/4 3/2 is less consonant than 0 390.0 701.2

--cents for the following reason..."
    The thing is...I can't explain that phenomena mathematically.  
I already gave the example 1.515 (719.18135 cents) sounds clearer than
1.5 (3/2) IE the 5th about a week before now. 

    1.515 (300/200) surely doesn't reduce to a low numbered fraction
and surely isn't close to an obvious real-world harmonic series (300th
harmonic?!?! :-S).   See what I'm getting at here...I am admitting
that, at this point, I simply can't explain this in mathematical terms.
   Ages ago, on the thread, someone posted a message linking to an
audio test and said that most people tested thought the octave sounded
better at 6 cents above 2/1 rather than 2/1.  They couldn't say why
either.  I'm just saying, for whatever reason (I don't know quite why
yet)...some of the most relaxed sounds occur a few cents away from
where you think they should and that I STRONGLY SUSPECT this has to do
with alignment of certain frequencies to receivers along the basilar
membrane.

-Michael

--- On Wed, 4/8/09, Carl Lumma <c

-Carl

--You've thought it appropriate to post a very high volume of messages --to this mailing list.
    Well, excuse my enthusiasm?!  Do you perhaps feel the need to make a special tuning list where only you, Charles, Wilson, and a few others don't have a message quota and/or punish people not on your "greats list" for their enthusiasm about micro-tonal music?  What's your point here?

    In other words, I AM NOT sorry...truth is I'm just looking for a large amount of feedback, much like any artist serious about trying to improve.

  I post because I wish to learn and compare, NOT because I think my work is the best or most important (which appears to be what you are accusing me off: being "not important/elite enough" to post this many message). 

  
The twisted truth about micro-tonal, I swear, is that in truth it's very un-elite despite the horrific amount of "X is the only way to do this!" type of "elitist" discussion that goes on on this list.

  You're (and everyone here is) almost certainly not going to famous doing micro-tonal: I'd have a better chance at getting signed to a major label as a "REAL" (IE 12TET) musician.  Again, I am simply here to learn and compare and trying to find out how to make scales that are both consonant and significantly different than existing ones.  Everything I say about how I think my scales are doing is in I statement...I never have turned around and said "my scale is the best"...the worst I've said is akin to "my scales seem to be competitive with, on par with X type of scales according to myself and the few people I've tested them on".
**************************************************************

--Your response has been to 1. ignore their advice, or
--2. blame them for ignoring your "theories", 3. accuse them
--or "the list" of having some sort of problem or another.
   I don't blame them unless they blame me.  Which, unfortunately, happens a lot...but mostly with yourself and 1-2 others.   Believe it or not it is perfectly possible to say that 1) my scales often aren't JI  2) JI is good 3) my scales can be good without being JI  4) I understand JI, just don't happen to agree it's the only way to do things well.

   BTW, I do take a LOT of advice, just not a majority.  If 25% of your advice, say, has to do with psychoacoustics and 75% directly with JI and only JI, I will likely take the 25% and ignore the 75%.

  The problem comes when people like you turn everything into black and white and say I must be "completely ignoring" them when in fact I am applying anything
much less than all of their ideas.  And then often, fail to see that indeed I do respect them as very knowledgable.

Here are just a few things I've learned from you that I do when possible
A) Convert scales into ratio format whenever possible (note this doesn't work with irrational value), via SCALA for example
B) When dealing with ratio format scales, use o-tonal (IE 6/5,7/5) and u-tonal (11/8,13/8) related fractions.  This is EXACTLY what I did for my "rational-number estimated PHI" scale.
C) The concept of critical-band roughness and alignment of overtones (not just root notes) with the scale that helps maximize consonance.
D) The harmonic series works as 6/5 * 7/6 * 8/7....cancel out numerators and denominators and result in a constant difference tone between any two consecutive tones thus resulting in "periodicity".  You convinced me this, and not just critical band roughness, is a huge factor in consonance...and
this prompted me to find other ways of acheiving a feel of periodicity BEYOND just use of the harmonic series.
E) 12TET works well in particular b/c its tones are equally spaced...in virtually every scale I make I try to A) start with what sounds natural to my ears B) approach equally spaced tones as much as possible

And....that's just a handful of things I've learned from you...I guess you could say my "PROBLEM" is that I often decide NOT to simply stick with the facts and instead decide is there are any possibilities to expand the underlying concepts (IE difference tones in the harmonic series) to work effectively in, say, things NOT related to harmonic series.
***********************************************************************
If you can't find even the slightest bit of evidence of listening, respect, and thankfulness from me to you in all I've said...then I guess you shouldn't respond to me.  On the other hand, I sincerely
hope you do...because I've learned a lot from you so far, even though I "choose to disobey" on certain accounts. :-)

-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:

> -As already mentioned, audio examples are nice, but if you
> -want to do music theory you'll have to provide your results
> -in writing first and foremost.
>
>      Sorry about that, I agree it's a problem, I'm working
> on it.

It's not a problem, it's a dealbreaker. If you want to sit
around all day and describe how audio files make you feel,
that's a perfectly valid activity and you can even do it here.
But when you start throwing around scientific terminology (like
"basilar membrane", "difference tone", etc.) you are _obligated_
to use quantitative language. That means numbers.

> Some of it is rather tricky as some notes simply don't have
> mathematical equivalents:

I highly doubt that. In music theory, we routinely use two
kinds of numbers: rationals, and reals. Look them up in
Wikipedia and come back here if you have questions.

Other kinds of numbers (such as surreal numbers) are certainly
fair game, if you want to have a go at those. But first
learn to use rationals and reals.

Meanwhile, I see you've ignored my advice about how to format
posts on a mailing list.

>      It took me a while because, again, you seem to want ONLY
> whole-numbered fractional scales

What on earth gave you this idea? I've never said anything
even remotely like this, and I've already responded negatively
to this accusation from you at least once. What do I have to
do to dispel you of it?

> --"I think 1/1 5/4 3/2 is less consonant than 0 390.0 701.2
> --cents for the following reason..."

Waitaminute. It's a quote from Carl. He's using cents,
which happen to be real numbers. Amazing!

>     The thing is...I can't explain that phenomena mathematically.

We've noticed.

> I already gave the example 1.515 (719.18135 cents) sounds
> clearer than 1.5 (3/2) IE the 5th about a week before now. 

Sorry, I must have missed it in all the raving nonsense you've
been posting. What timbre are you using? 719.18135 certainly
does NOT sound "clearer" to me than 1.5, with every timbre
I've tried.

Whew, numbers. Amazing! _Now_ may be a time to complement
your numbers with audio examples (please clearly label each
link with the chord, e.g.

""
3:2
http://somelink/32.wav

1.515
http://somelink/1515.wav
""

> 1.515 (300/200) surely doesn't reduce to a low numbered
> fraction

300/200 = 3/2 = 1.5, not 1.515.

1.515 = 1515/1000 = 303/200

> and surely isn't close to an obvious real-world harmonic
> series

Right. Though the interval is within the "field of attraction"*
of 3:2.

* Harry Parth, Genesis of a Music. Read it.
Here's the Amazon link:
http://tinyurl.com/cav33u

>    Ages ago, on the thread, someone posted a message linking to
> an audio test and said that most people tested thought the octave
> sounded better at 6 cents above 2/1 rather than 2/1.

Without locating that message, it's hard to know what's been
claimed. But for sine tones, Terhardt and others demonstrated
that stretched octaves are indeed preferred. For most normal
timbres, pure octaves are preferred. Google "Ernst Terhardt"
for more info, and post questions back here.

-Carl

--But when you start throwing around scientific terminology (like
--"basilar membrane", "difference tone", etc.) you are _obligated_
--to use quantitative language. That means numbers.
  First of all, let me say that virtually every single time I try NOT using such terms someone points my scale to some sort of scientific JI terminology it has little to nothing to do with!  I surely would rather have my scale incompletely explained then, for example, mangled into completely different numbers to fit someone elses "historical" scientific theories about how they were made.

   Far as more scientific description, ok, I figure I can at least say this for starters:
    Difference tones in relation to my PHI scale (or virtually any PHI scale).  My PHI scale naturally has proportions where, for example, in a triad, the ratio of the first (IE larger) to second gap in the chord is the same as the ratio from the gap between the first and third note over the second.  I thought this would be pretty obvious and most people here would know this applied simply by looking my mentioning use of PHI IE the golden ratio as that is the most basic property of PHI.

---Basilar membrane
   I'm trying to document this but am having a real time trying to discover a site or books with information related to information about how the basilar membrane treats tones played in unison with regards to consonance.  And I certainly can't take a microscope and look at how my own hairs vibrate and compare those vibrations mathematically (as recorded by hand).
   So I will put it like this: I strongly suspect the tone I've chosen vibrate, say, one hair (aligned to receive a certain , say "lower" frequency) and not the one designed to receive the next higher frequency or force the brain to struggle to interpolate to sound of a tone located "in between both hairs" that excites both of them.

> Some of it is rather tricky as some notes simply don't have

> mathematical equivalents:

--I highly doubt that. In music theory, we routinely use two
--kinds of numbers: rationals, and reals. Look them up in
--Wikipedia and come back here if you have questions.
   I'm a bit confused because I do use the non-rational type odd real numbers to describe scales and, as I remember, you were getting frustrated with my using them as low-numbered rational fractions.  Sure I could summarize my irrational scales as fractions, but does it really help to have fractions like 132456/100000 instead of 1.32456?  I'm not quite sure what you are getting at...and I'm certainly not using imaginary numbers either (LOL). :-)

--I've never said anything even remotely like this, and I've already ---responded negatively
--to this accusation from you at least once.
    Well, you keep on bringing up my failure to use a SCALA file and, the last time I did, you labelled it unclear and changed it to fractions.  Granted, in that case my scale WAS easily summerizable as fractions and maybe you didn't mean it as "always use fractions" and still don't...but in all your anger at that time plus your use of the statement "use fractions" it sure came across as such.

BTW...I will read your link about how to quote online, I did see it but simply haven't had the time or energy to get around to it fully yet and I'd appreciate some patience.

> 1.515 (300/200) surely doesn't reduce to a low numbered

> fraction
    You're right, I meant 303/200, doh.

--But for sine tones, Terhardt and others demonstrated
--that stretched octaves are indeed preferred. For most normal
--timbres, pure octaves are preferred. Google "Ernst Terhardt"
--for more info, and post questions back here.
    Hmm...maybe I have an odd sample set.  I have been using a basic guitar and piano sample so far for this testing purpose.  I can easily believe, that clashes between overtones in certain instruments could negate the positive effect a "stretched octave", for example, would have for "overtone-less" sine wave...I am listening here.

> --"I think 1/1 5/4 3/2 is less consonant than 0 390.0 701.2

> --cents for the following reason..." -Carl

--"Waitaminute. It's a quote from Carl. He's using cents,
--which happen to be real numbers. Amazing!" -Carl

    And your point here (beside bullying me around for an attitude you don't even vaguely know if I have or not) is? 
     Why is a cent any more of a real number than the decimal values I have used before to describe scale...it seems clear to me BOTH of the formats are real numbers.  If you want cents...it's as simple as saying "please state your irrational scales in cents".  No need to lecture on about real numbers, music certainly doesn't use imaginary numbers or odd surreal numbers (those that are not also real).  Again, you seem to be lecturing on "I know something that you don't"...rather than talking about the problem of communicating scales.  I've always used real numbers (if not rational fractions) to describe scales...just perhaps not in the real-number format you like...so far as I can tell.  Can we stick with "Carl wants Mike to use real numbered cents in his scales not decimal point real numbers?" and be done with this part of the argument?

-Michael

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 12:14 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, djtrancendance@ ... wrote:

> -As already mentioned, audio examples are nice, but if you

> -want to do music theory you'll have to provide your results

> -in writing first and foremost.

>

>      Sorry about that, I agree it's a problem, I'm working

> on it.

It's not a problem, it's a dealbreaker. If you want to sit

around all day and describe how audio files make you feel,

that's a perfectly valid activity and you can even do it here.

But when you start throwing around scientific terminology (like

"basilar membrane", "difference tone", etc.) you are _obligated_

to use quantitative language. That means numbers.

> Some of it is rather tricky as some notes simply don't have

> mathematical equivalents:

I highly doubt that. In music theory, we routinely use two

kinds of numbers: rationals, and reals. Look them up in

Wikipedia and come back here if you have questions.

Other kinds of numbers (such as surreal numbers) are certainly

fair game, if you want to have a go at those. But first

learn to use rationals and reals.

Meanwhile, I see you've ignored my advice about how to format

posts on a mailing list.

>      It took me a while because, again, you seem to want ONLY

> whole-numbered fractional scales

What on earth gave you this idea? I've never said anything

even remotely like this, and I've already responded negatively

to this accusation from you at least once. What do I have to

do to dispel you of it?

> --"I think 1/1 5/4 3/2 is less consonant than 0 390.0 701.2

> --cents for the following reason..."

Waitaminute. It's a quote from Carl. He's using cents,

which happen to be real numbers. Amazing!

>     The thing is...I can't explain that phenomena mathematically.

We've noticed.

> I already gave the example 1.515 (719.18135 cents) sounds

> clearer than 1.5 (3/2) IE the 5th about a week before now. 

Sorry, I must have missed it in all the raving nonsense you've

been posting. What timbre are you using? 719.18135 certainly

does NOT sound "clearer" to me than 1.5, with every timbre

I've tried.

Whew, numbers. Amazing! _Now_ may be a time to complement

your numbers with audio examples (please clearly label each

link with the chord, e.g.

""

3:2

http://somelink/ 32.wav

1.515

http://somelink/ 1515.wav

""

> 1.515 (300/200) surely doesn't reduce to a low numbered

> fraction

300/200 = 3/2 = 1.5, not 1.515.

1.515 = 1515/1000 = 303/200

> and surely isn't close to an obvious real-world harmonic

> series

Right. Though the interval is within the "field of attraction"*

of 3:2.

* Harry Parth, Genesis of a Music. Read it.

Here's the Amazon link:

http://tinyurl. com/cav33u

>    Ages ago, on the thread, someone posted a message linking to

> an audio test and said that most people tested thought the octave

> sounded better at 6 cents above 2/1 rather than 2/1.

Without locating that message, it's hard to know what's been

claimed. But for sine tones, Terhardt and others demonstrated

that stretched octaves are indeed preferred. For most normal

timbres, pure octaves are preferred. Google "Ernst Terhardt"

for more info, and post questions back here.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
>
> --You've thought it appropriate to post a very high volume of
> -- messages to this mailing list.
>     Well, excuse my enthusiasm?! 

You're not excused. Enthusiasm is good. So is due diligence.
So is considering others. This list is a community resource.
Before you hit send, ask yourself if you're making a positive
contribution to it in an efficient manner. Can your message
be edited down? Can you sleep on it to see if anything else
comes to mind? Or are you just blasting the list with whatever
came to your mind after you smoked that bowl.

>     In other words, I AM NOT sorry...

We can tell. Your poor attitude is all over your posts.

>   I post because I wish to learn and compare

That's great. That's what this list is for. But if that's
your goal, your attitude sucks.

> The twisted truth about micro-tonal, I swear, is that in truth
> it's very un-elite despite the horrific amount of "X is the only
> way to do this!" type of "elitist" discussion that goes on on
> this list.

Right. It's everybody else's fault.

-Carl

--So is considering others. This list is a community resource.
--Before you hit send, ask yourself if you're making a positive
--contribution to it in an efficient manner.
    Notice, usually my threads start with short messages.  But, almost always, someone asks a LONG question about them and I respond with a message about the same length as the question.

   I start about one new thread per about 6-8 hours of working on a scale...and often it's not even about the full scale but a sub-topic like difference tones.  And, dare I say, I believe I am producing at least some value here...a lot of people spun off different yet typically relevant topics about difference tones after I started that whole thread. :-)

--Can your message be edited down?
It can, but I haven't
figured the perfect balance between
A) so vague it prompts very long questions
B) so detailed it annoys people by being to long
NOTE: I've actually written many threads where one person will say A) and the other person B)!!!....IE there's no clear cut answer to how to handle this as far as I can tell.  Mind you complaints like the above almost always come from the same 2-3 people, not the hundreds of others on this list.

--"Or are you just blasting the list with whatever
--came to your mind after you smoked that bowl." -Carl
   Does anyone else think Carl is just being a bastard by writing thing like the above?

>     In other words, I AM NOT sorry...

-We can tell. Your poor attitude is all over your posts.
Look at what you just wrote about the "BOWL" and then "due diligence" (in a tone of speech like a 35 year old talking to a 15 year old).  Does anyone else here beside myself see this attitude as blatantly worse than my own so far?

>   I post because I wish to learn and compare

--That's great. That's what this list is for. But if that's
--your goal, your attitude sucks.
How do you all of a sudden know my attitude and intentions.  Your attitude seems to be "Mike puts no intelligent effort into his scales, writes a lot, and might as well be smoking pot when he comes up with this".  Dude, back off! 
   Maybe you don't like my work, but you don't know
A) what other people BESIDE YOU think of my work and/or whether I'm a valid contributor
B) how much time I spend working on scales before each post (hint: it's plenty)
C) what my intentions are in choosing to or to not follow certain bits of advice from you or others

> The twisted truth about micro-tonal, I swear, is that in truth

> it's very un-elite despite the horrific amount of "X is the only

> way to do this!" type of "elitist" discussion that goes on on

> this list.

---Right. It's everybody else's fault.
   I never said that it's everyone else's fault, just that it's a common problem that often turns a simple short explanation of mine into a long series of follow-ups with my longer responses being efforts to clear up things I didn't say.  Surely it isn't everyone's fault...but there are a few people (literally 2-3, your being one of them) who will often turn, say my 200 words scale explanation into a books worth of arguing "what Michael means is..." when they simply don't know my intentions are.

   Carl, please do me a favor and back of the "I'm your psychic" business...and asking LONG often angry series of questions every time I post something here.  I use "I" statements to describe my thoughts, and hope you will choose to as well. 
********************
BOTTOM LINE:
   What do people here (AND NOT JUST CARL AND I!!!) think I and/or Carl should change
about how we conduct our participation on this list?
  
-Michael

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

> First of all, let me say that virtually every single time I
> try NOT using

Nobody cares about your excuses, Michael. When you contribute
something others find interesting, you'll get respect. If
you don't like being judged on the merits of your work, don't
participate in technical mailing lists.

>Difference tones in relation to my PHI scale (or virtually any
>PHI scale).  My PHI scale naturally has proportions where, for
>example, in a triad, the ratio of the first (IE larger) to
>second gap in the chord is the same as the ratio from the gap
>between the first and third note over the second.

What's a gap -- you mean an interval? Which notes are you
talking about... I can't follow "third note over the second".
Can you give an example?

> I'm trying to document this but am having a real time trying
> to discover a site or books with information related to
> information about how the basilar membrane treats tones played
> in unison with regards to consonance.  And I certainly can't take
> a microscope and look at how my own hairs vibrate and compare
> those vibrations mathematically (as recorded by hand).

What question are you trying to answer? You want some sort
of consonance score for the unison? The first step in
answering questions is formulating them clearly.

>    So I will put it like this: I strongly suspect the tone I've
> chosen vibrate, say, one hair (aligned to receive a certain , say
> "lower" frequency) and not the one designed to receive the nex t
> higher frequency or force the brain to struggle to interpolate to
> sound of a tone located "in between both hairs" that excites both
> of them.

I can hardly parse this text. Here's a try... You're going to
generate a sine tone that only vibrates one hair? That's
anatomically impossible, but OK... ...I think you're asking
about the resolution of the basilar membrane, and if you can
stimulate it more finely with some tones than with others? The
answer to that question is: the resolution of the basilar
membrane (really the whole cochlea, which functions as a
mechanical unit) varies, depending on the frequency and amplitude
of the stimulus. And it varies somewhat from person to person.
Other than that, it's fixed.* If you want to stimulate as few
hairs as possible, the only thing you can do is play a pure sine
tone at low volume and at a frequency where the membrane's
resolution is highest. You still will get dozens of hair cells
moving, but anyway... ...does that answer your question?

> --I highly doubt that. In music theory, we routinely use two
> --kinds of numbers: rationals, and reals. Look them up in
> --Wikipedia and come back here if you have questions.
>    I'm a bit confused because I do use the non-rational type
> odd real numbers to describe scales

Lessee, Michael... Did you look these up in Wikipedia and come
back with questions as I suggested, or just barf questions
right back on the list?

>I'm not quite sure what you are getting at...and I'm certainly
>not using imaginary numbers either (LOL). :-)

I've asked you about 27 times to use Scala format. The benefit
of this is that it's a documented format with a parser (Scala)
that will either accept or reject files as valid or invalid.
That should help keep you on track after your 6th or 7th bowl.
But if you want to fly solo, try using either:

1. simple rationals

OR

2. cents

to describe all scales and chords you're communicating. You
can use Hz. for pitches, but shouldn't normally need to talk
about pitches.

>     Well, you keep on bringing up my failure to use a SCALA
> file

Have you even bothered to read the documentation on the
Scala site? If you had, you'd know you can use cents or
rationals, even mixed together in the same file.

>the last time I did, you labelled it unclear and changed it
>to fractions.  Granted, in that case my scale WAS easily
>summerizable as fractions

That was the key point in that case, yes.

> BTW...I will read your link about how to quote online, I did
> see it but simply haven't had the time or energy to get around
> to it fully yet and I'd appreciate some patience.

I'm happy to wait until you've had time to read and digest it
to continue this conversation. There are no buildings burning
down that I know of.

>I can easily believe, that clashes between overtones in certain
>instruments could negate the positive effect a "stretched octave",
>for example, would have for "overtone-less" sine wave...

Right.

> --"Waitaminute. It's a quote from Carl. He's using cents,
> --which happen to be real numbers. Amazing!" -Carl
>
>     And your point here (beside bullying me around for an
> attitude you don't even vaguely know if I have or not) is?

I believe you'd just finished telling me I always used
rationals.

-Carl

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

> First of all, let me say that virtually every single time I
> try NOT using

Nobody cares about your excuses, Michael. When you contribute
something others find interesting, you'll get respect. If
you don't like being judged on the merits of your work, don't
participate in technical mailing lists. So far, you don't seem
to be able to accept criticism.

>Difference tones in relation to my PHI scale (or virtually any
>PHI scale). My PHI scale naturally has proportions where, for
>example, in a triad, the ratio of the first (IE larger) to
>second gap in the chord is the same as the ratio from the gap
>between the first and third note over the second.

What's a gap -- you mean an interval? Which notes are you
talking about... I can't follow "third note over the second".
Can you give an example?

> I'm trying to document this but am having a real time trying
> to discover a site or books with information related to
> information about how the basilar membrane treats tones played
> in unison with regards to consonance. And I certainly can't take
> a microscope and look at how my own hairs vibrate and compare
> those vibrations mathematically (as recorded by hand).

What question are you trying to answer? Are you have some
sort of consonance score for the unison? The first step in
answering questions is formulating them.

> So I will put it like this: I strongly suspect the tone I've
> chosen vibrate, say, one hair (aligned to receive a certain , say
> "lower" frequency) and not the one designed to receive the nex t
> higher frequency or force the brain to struggle to interpolate to
> sound of a tone located "in between both hairs" that excites both
> of them.

I hope you'll believe me when I say I can hardly parse this
text. Here's a try... You're going to generate a sine tone that
only vibrates one hair? That's anatomically impossible, but
OK... ...I think you're asking about the resolution of the
basilar membrane, and if you can stimulate it more finely with
some tones than with others? The answer to that question is: the
resolution of the basilar membrane varies, depending on the
frequency and amplitude of the stimulus. And it varies somewhat
from person to person. Other than that, it's fixed. If you want
to stimulate as few hairs as possible, the only thing you can do
is play a pure sine tone at low volume and at a frequency where
the membrane's resolution is highest. You still will get dozens
of hair cells moving, but anyway... ...does that answer your
question?

> --I highly doubt that. In music theory, we routinely use two
> --kinds of numbers: rationals, and reals. Look them up in
> --Wikipedia and come back here if you have questions.
> I'm a bit confused because I do use the non-rational type
> odd real numbers to describe scales

Lessee, Michael... Did you look these up in Wikipedia and come
back with questions as I suggested, or just barf questions
right back on the list?

>I'm not quite sure what you are getting at...and I'm certainly
>not using imaginary numbers either (LOL). :-)

I've asked you about 27 times to use Scala format. The benefit
of this is that it's a documented format with a parser (Scala)
that will either accept or reject files as valid or invalid.
That should help keep you on track after your 6th or 7th bowl.
But if you want to fly solo, try using either:

1. simple rationals

OR

2. cents

to describe all scales and chords you're communicating. You
can use Hz. for pitches, but shouldn't normally need to talk
about pitches.

> Well, you keep on bringing up my failure to use a SCALA
> file

Have you ever even bothered to read the documentation on the
Scala site? If you had, you'd know you can use cents or
rationals, even together, in the same file.

>the last time I did, you labelled it unclear and changed it
>to fractions. Granted, in that case my scale WAS easily
>summerizable as fractions

That was the key point in that case, yes.

> BTW...I will read your link about how to quote online, I did
> see it but simply haven't had the time or energy to get around
> to it fully yet and I'd appreciate some patience.

I'm happy to wait until you've had time to read and digest it
to continue this conversation. There are no buildings burning
down that I know of.

>I can easily believe, that clashes between overtones in certain
>instruments could negate the positive effect a "stretched octave",
>for example, would have for "overtone-less" sine wave...

Right.

> --"Waitaminute. It's a quote from Carl. He's using cents,
> --which happen to be real numbers. Amazing!" -Carl
>
> And your point here (beside bullying me around for an
> attitude you don't even vaguely know if I have or not) is?

I believe you'd just finished telling me I always used
rationals.

-Carl

* SOAEs do dynamically change the resolution of the cochlea
somewhat, but not in a manner that's terribly significant
in what I wrote above.

--But if you want to fly solo, try using either:
--1. simple rationals

--OR

--2. cents
     Right...finally we get around these odd "real number" definitions and down to the point...so I'm copying that for others to see.

--When you contribute something others find interesting, you'll get --respect
   While I've had some misses...I'm very confident I've also had a decent number of "hits" IE my difference tone discussion topic and my old tetra-chordal JI scale you helped me put into SCALA which another list member far later brought up again as having "some very interesting properties" and asking "who made this".  It is apparent I don't have respect from you (I certainly don't get others going crazy and accusing me of smoking pot :-P) but (AND IF ANY OF YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SAY SO).  The point is I'm pretty sure a good chunk of people are interested in what I have to say.  And a few more if you count those who don't agree with my theories on the whole but do see good
chunks of what I say which they do agree with.

--Have you ever even bothered to read the documentation on the
--Scala site? If you had, you'd know you can use cents
or
--rationals, even together, in the same file.
   I do but, to be blatantly honest, my DAW works with decimal ratios and not cents and I develop scales by COMPOSING with them (yes, I'm guilty of feeling scales out partly by emotion and direct musical use). 
   It's not that I'm not listening to your simple but sage scala tips but just...that working with cents or decimals (IE converting them to cents or near-by fractions so I can shove them into SCALA is just another time consuming step and another step that adds to the possibility that I misdocument one of the ratios in the scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--"I think you're asking
--
about the resolution of the basilar membrane, and if you can
--
stimulate it more finely with some tones than with others?
CORRECT! :-)

--The answer to that question is: the resolution of the basilar
--membrane (really the whole cochlea, which functions as a
--mechanical unit) varies, depending on the frequency and amplitude
--of the stimulus. And it varies somewhat from person to person.

--Other than that, it's fixed.* If you want to stimulate as few

--hairs as possible, the only thing you can do is play a pure sine

--tone at low volume and

!!!!!!----at a frequency where the membrane's

--resolution is highest. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    THANK YOU!  Now that you're done with all the random insults this is actually useful information that IS in tune with my questions and very useful in completing what I admited to be my gaps in knowledge about the basilar membrane. 
   My point, restated with your more specific terms, is to hit those exact areas where the resolution is the highest.  Since even in regular instruments the root tone is much louder than most of the overtones the root tone is the one I seek to align.

--You still will get dozens of hair cells
--moving, but anyway... ...does that answer your question?
   Yes and yes...now did you really need to point all those insults at me before revealing that valuable info (or perhaps similar info about your take on my topic of the use of difference tones via using PHI (or other noble numbers that produce similar proportions)
as a generator)? :-)

BTW...suppose you divide the two intervals of a triad into A and B with A being a larger part.  Then A/B = A+B/A (basic definition of the golden ratio is the ratio of A/B.  And, guess what, the difference tones ALSO follow those symmetrical proportions.
    The golden ratio's property above is just about as basic as I can explain...do you still not get it (I'm having a tough time believing such a concept would actually confuse someone as smart as yourself otherwise)?

-Michael

Michael,

BOTTOM LINE:
What do people here (AND NOT JUST CARL AND I!!!) think I and/or Carl
should change about how we conduct our participation on this list?

The best solution would be for you to follow Carl's advice, be MUCH more
humble and VERY MUCH more concise.
You should be aware that the behaviour of you and a few others would not be
tolerated in most discussion forums, and is bothering the list in more than
one way.
At least two world-class authorities, who would be invaluable members, are
refraining from joining this list because of the excessive noise and
lengthy personal chat, and you are one of the main offenders.
Your posts openly show that your intentions are not to listen, or to learn,
or to produce new ideas, or to ask for advice.
You just like to see your writings published: why don't you just publish a
web page?
Tell me please: do you really believe that most members in the list find
your posts interesting?
Yeah, maybe so.
Or else they do not even bother to answer anymore.

Claudio

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:

> --The answer to that question is: the resolution of the basilar
> --membrane (really the whole cochlea, which functions as a
> --mechanical unit) varies, depending on the frequency and amplitude
> --of the stimulus. And it varies somewhat from person to person.
> --Other than that, it's fixed.* If you want to stimulate as few
> --hairs as possible, the only thing you can do is play a pure sine
> --tone at low volume and
>
>     THANK YOU!  Now that you're done with all the random insults
> this is actually useful information that IS in tune with my
> questions and very useful in completing what I admited to be my
> gaps in knowledge about the basilar membrane.

Gaps in knowledge are insignificant. It's the approach to
learning that matters.

>    My point, restated with your more specific terms, is to hit
> those exact areas where the resolution is the highest.

Why do you want to do that?

> Since even in regular instruments the root tone is much louder
> than most of the overtones the root tone is the one I seek
> to align.

What I said was about pure tones only. When we're talking
about complex tones, the picture in the cochlea stays largely
the same (since it decomposes them into pure tones anyway).
But the picture in the brain is very different.

> --You still will get dozens of hair cells
> --moving, but anyway... ...does that answer your question?
>
>    Yes and yes...now did you really need to point all those
> insults

I haven't been insulting you, I've been trying to get you
to realize that your approach is seriously limiting your
success in your stated goals. And until you do, any progress
is strictly temporary.

> at me before revealing that valuable info (or perhaps
> similar info about your take on my topic of the use of
> difference tones via using PHI (or other noble numbers that
> produce similar proportions) as a generator)? :-)

I long ago pointed you to the Keenan/Schulter work on
"metastable intervals" -- have you studied it?

> BTW...suppose you divide the two intervals of a triad

_Which_ two? There are three intervals in any triad.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Then, several very knowledgeable people and accomplished
> musicians and theorists have carefully reviewed your posts
> and have given you personal handholding advice FOR FREE.
> For over a year now. You can pay $100,000 to attend an
> excellent university anywhere in the world, and in four
> years you're unlikely to get access to the caliber of
> people (Graham, Herman, Claudio, etc.) you're interacting
> with here.

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm really just a programmer with some interest in alternative tuning. Any scholarly or academic knowledge I may have picked up in this area is mainly from this list, a handful of books, and various web sites. Along the way I happened to run across an interesting chord progression or two, which had some influence on the tuning theory that was being developed on the tuning-math list.

I do think this list has lost some of the focus on music that it had in the old days, partly due to the many posts that it's hard to make heads or tails of, or the splitting of the lists, but tuning-math has been inactive for quite some time so it's not just that. The loss of mp3.com and the tuning-punks page may be a factor. There's not really a good place to collect all our tuning sound samples in one place.

I would be happy to provide this

"There's not really a good
place to collect all our tuning sound samples in one place."

What it would cost anyone on this list is an email address and agreement not
to post porn, warez or anything that violates a copyright you don't have
authority to do.

However, I've offered help for some months without takers....

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

>
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > Then, several very knowledgeable people and accomplished
> > musicians and theorists have carefully reviewed your posts
> > and have given you personal handholding advice FOR FREE.
> > For over a year now. You can pay $100,000 to attend an
> > excellent university anywhere in the world, and in four
> > years you're unlikely to get access to the caliber of
> > people (Graham, Herman, Claudio, etc.) you're interacting
> > with here.
>
> Thanks for the compliment, but I'm really just a programmer with some
> interest in alternative tuning. Any scholarly or academic knowledge I
> may have picked up in this area is mainly from this list, a handful of
> books, and various web sites. Along the way I happened to run across an
> interesting chord progression or two, which had some influence on the
> tuning theory that was being developed on the tuning-math list.
>
> I do think this list has lost some of the focus on music that it had in
> the old days, partly due to the many posts that it's hard to make heads
> or tails of, or the splitting of the lists, but tuning-math has been
> inactive for quite some time so it's not just that. The loss of mp3.com
> and the tuning-punks page may be a factor. There's not really a good
> place to collect all our tuning sound samples in one place.
>
>
>

http://microforum.soonlabel.com/

if you want to exchange files sign up and agree to my terms. I'll tell you
flat out if you clearly violate the terms your account will be terminated
because it will violate my hosts terms of service.

I've just installed this discussion board in an hour so its not pretty etc.
right now pictures and mp3s are allowed.

you can hot link to the files posted here.

I woudl have made a separate post but Yahoo is having trouble right now....

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

> I would be happy to provide this
>
> "There's not really a good
> place to collect all our tuning sound samples in one place."
>
> What it would cost anyone on this list is an email address and agreement
> not to post porn, warez or anything that violates a copyright you don't
> have authority to do.
>
> However, I've offered help for some months without takers....
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:18 PM, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Carl Lumma wrote:
>>
>> > Then, several very knowledgeable people and accomplished
>> > musicians and theorists have carefully reviewed your posts
>> > and have given you personal handholding advice FOR FREE.
>> > For over a year now. You can pay $100,000 to attend an
>> > excellent university anywhere in the world, and in four
>> > years you're unlikely to get access to the caliber of
>> > people (Graham, Herman, Claudio, etc.) you're interacting
>> > with here.
>>
>> Thanks for the compliment, but I'm really just a programmer with some
>> interest in alternative tuning. Any scholarly or academic knowledge I
>> may have picked up in this area is mainly from this list, a handful of
>> books, and various web sites. Along the way I happened to run across an
>> interesting chord progression or two, which had some influence on the
>> tuning theory that was being developed on the tuning-math list.
>>
>> I do think this list has lost some of the focus on music that it had in
>> the old days, partly due to the many posts that it's hard to make heads
>> or tails of, or the splitting of the lists, but tuning-math has been
>> inactive for quite some time so it's not just that. The loss of mp3.com
>> and the tuning-punks page may be a factor. There's not really a good
>> place to collect all our tuning sound samples in one place.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

> For over a year now. You can pay $100,000 to attend an

> excellent university anywhere in the world, and in four

> years you're unlikely to get access to the caliber of

> people (Graham, Herman, Claudio, etc.) you're interacting

> with here.
-Herman

   Agreed...which is one of the reasons I stick around and often talk about topics far from what I'm working on (such as the old "why a minor and major triad have different levels of listening consonance despite having the same mathematical consonance."   Often I start working on something and hit on a development in something else so striking it causes me to turn my theory around completely...or ditch it.  Again, some people (IE Carl) may not like my opinions or the fact I don't automatically adopt 100% of their ideas...but that doesn't mean I'm not listening or that I don't respect their knowledge (believe me, I do). :-)

--Thanks for the compliment, but I'm really just a programmer with some
---interest in alternative tuning.
-Herman

    Ditto here (so far as coming from a programming background). :-)  Actually, I started with sound DSP processing/effects programming and indirectly learned about consonance curves and critical band psychoacoustics (mostly via Sethares) in trying to figure out a good way to specially "EQ" sound files to maximize consonance.  Indirectly, this lead to a fascination with microtuning...and once I started composing with microtuning I was instantly hooked.
********************************************************
--Any scholarly or academic knowledge I may have picked up in this --area is mainly from this list, a handful of books, and various web sites.
-Herman

Dare I ask...Herman, in your opinion what are some of the best books around of microtonal music?

--but tuning-math has been
--inactive for quite some time so it's not just that. The loss of mp3.com
--and the tuning-punks page may be a factor. There's not really a good
--place to collect all our tuning sound samples in one place. -Herman

      It's an odd divide I've noticed too (those interested tuning math vs. sound samples).  ADMITTEDLY I'm more into the alternative emotions available through alternative tunings than, say, tonallity diamonds, horagrams, and all that jazz. 
          Which is why I
A) take sound samples and not mathematical papers as the "Holy Grail" so far as proof of concept for new scales
B) gravitate a lot toward creating my scales by composing with them in a DAW (which uses decimal format for ratios) and only when I'm done attempting to convert them to SCALA.
    This puts me at odds with a good few people here who have actually gotten downright infuriated at me for not viewing math, rather than sound, as the "Holy Grail" so far as proof of concept for new scales even asking things like "sounds good, but what am I supposed to hear mathematically?...otherwise the scale is useless."

  May I suggest, perhaps, we split this scale into two sections
A) "Tuning math" (or perhaps migrating some people onto just the tuning math list) for those interested primarily in things like tonality diamonds and historical papers on tuning
B) "Tuning Sounds" (sound examples and just basic SCALA files)
and perhaps occasional (but NOT required!) linking to articles about the history behind how the scales were formed (if any such history exists)

-Michael

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

From: Herman Miller <hmiller@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 6:18 PM

Carl Lumma wrote:

> Then, several very knowledgeable people and accomplished

> musicians and theorists have carefully reviewed your posts

> and have given you personal handholding advice FOR FREE.

> For over a year now. You can pay $100,000 to attend an

> excellent university anywhere in the world, and in four

> years you're unlikely to get access to the caliber of

> people (Graham, Herman, Claudio, etc.) you're interacting

> with here.

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm really just a programmer with some

interest in alternative tuning. Any scholarly or academic knowledge I

may have picked up in this area is mainly from this list, a handful of

books, and various web sites. Along the way I happened to run across an

interesting chord progression or two, which had some influence on the

tuning theory that was being developed on the tuning-math list.

I do think this list has lost some of the focus on music that it had in

the old days, partly due to the many posts that it's hard to make heads

or tails of, or the splitting of the lists, but tuning-math has been

inactive for quite some time so it's not just that. The loss of mp3.com

and the tuning-punks page may be a factor. There's not really a good

place to collect all our tuning sound samples in one place.

May I suggest, perhaps, we split this scale into two sections
A) "Tuning math" (or perhaps migrating some people onto just the tuning math
list) for those interested primarily in things like tonality diamonds and
historical papers on tuning
B) "Tuning Sounds" (sound examples and just basic SCALA files)
and perhaps occasional (but NOT required!) linking to articles about the
history behind how the scales were formed (if any such history exists)

-Michael

Over my dead body.
The two things belong together.

Claudio

--Over my dead
body.
--The two
things belong together.

In that case...could we at least make an agreement on both sides IE
A) people more interested in sounds agree not to harass people about not posting sound file examples
but also
B) people who think technical terms and/or math are the most important thing agree not to harass those who post mostly sound files

   I'm just saying in general...too much of this list is ending up being dedicated to conflicts (which often borderline on "flaming") between the more "composer" types of people and the more "scale mathematician" types, and both (including people with their "feet in both pools") should be able to post information without constantly being harassed in a way such as "you information fails to meet my standard, therefore you are a troll..."

  In other words, we should have a guard on this list against harassing people to either change their views/format-of-displaying-scales or leave the list...because that kind of behavior is far from civil and/or ultimately productive.  If myself, yourself, everyone...improved on this we'd likely cut down in list clutter and flaming by a huge amount.

-Michael

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 6:22 AM

May I suggest, perhaps, we split this scale into two sections
A) "Tuning
math" (or perhaps migrating some people onto just the tuning math list) for
those interested primarily in things like tonality diamonds and historical
papers on tuning
B) "Tuning Sounds" (sound examples and just basic SCALA
files)
and perhaps occasional (but NOT required!) linking to articles about
the history behind how the scales were formed (if any such history
exists)

-Michael
 
Over my dead
body.
The two
things belong together.
 
Claudio 

>    "My point, restated with your more specific terms, is to hit

> those exact areas where the resolution is the highest." -Me
-- "Why do you want to do that?"  -Carl
  Potentially...less stress on the brain to figure out where the sound is and thus a more decently, if not hugely, more relaxed sound.  I figure this would matter as, for example, it's very hard to find the fundamental tone in a noise wave (be it filtered or not) as it hits so many hairs.

  BTW, if by odd chance you know of a paper about the areas of maximum resolution and where they are suspected to be (which frequencies)...I'd love to read it.

--"What I said was about pure tones only. When we're talking
--about complex tones, the picture in the cochlea stays largely
--the same (since it decomposes them into pure tones anyway).
--But the picture in the brain is very different."
   How so...is the picture in the brain very different?
  All I know so far is , for example (at least subjectively IE for me), it seems to take a good percentage (say 5-10%) of the stress of hearing even a full instrument playing a note by adjusting it up or down a few cents
to align the root tone of the instrument to "those exact areas where the resolution is the highest".  And if instruments are indeed reduced to pure tones in the cochlea, should not it help to have those first few overtones (often the loudest by far in the instrument) aligned to the areas of highest resolution in the ear?

--I haven't been insulting you, I've been trying to get you
--to realize that your approach is seriously limiting your
--success in your stated goals.
    Ok, I am confused here...I still don't see what is so ignorant about my approach, minus that I'm choosing not to take a good chunk of tuning history (esp. that related to JI) into my theories.  If that's the issue, heck: in many ways Sethares did a good chunk of such "ignorance" himself.  Not saying I'm as good as him, but that I don't think my mission and approach to learning is that much more different (IE cycle around low-level psycho-acoustics, rather than assumptions made on top of them such as the age-old battle of harmonic-series compliance).

--And until you do, any progress
--is strictly temporary.
   Hehehe...but wouldn't that imply I'd have to "de-progress" afterwards? :-D   There have been times where I realized my progress
was going in a circle (IE my tetrachord scale theory leading up to the obvious x/16 harmonic series, as you noted) where I realized I had gone too far in optimization and simply abandoned the theory and never mentioned it again).
  But, usually, I've found if something I've been working on sticks around for a few months without any such conflicts...it has at least a few valid psychoacoustic phenomena evident in it that can be useful not just to myself but other micro-tonal scale creators (if not a whole scale that can be very useful for microtonal musicians).

--I long ago pointed you to the Keenan/Schulter work on
--"metastable intervals" -- have you studied it?
Yes, but that paper concern the area of MAXIMUM ENTROPY using the formula
NobleMediant(i/j, m/n) =
(i + Phi * m)/(j + Phi * n)

to find the highest point of entropy between fractions
i/j and m/n. He's attempting to use PHI to generate maximum

entropy while I'm searching for minimum entropy and
his generation formula is obviously different than mine of
(PHI^X)/2^Y. Just because someone uses PHI in a formula
does NOT mean they are necessarily doing anything vaguely
related to what I am trying to do...in fact, the theory
mentioned in the paper seems pretty close to the POLAR
OPPOSITE of both what I do and am aiming to do using PHI.
************************************************

> BTW...suppose you divide the two intervals of a triad -ME
--_Which_ two? There are three intervals in any triad. -CARL

Say the triad is 5/7/9.
The first interval is 7/5, the second is 9/7.
The >>SUM<< of the first and second is 9/5 (I am
guessing this is what you mean by the "third interval).

And my point, again, is that, in regards to the
PHI tuning IE PHI^X/2^Y...that the first interval
over the second is the same ratio
as the SUM over
the first...which is 1.618033... This is how PHI can
be used to create some "ridiculously symmetrical"
difference tones without "resorting" to having the
first and second interval equal each other (as the
straight harmonic series does). :-)

-Michael

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:20 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, djtrancendance@ ... wrote:

> --The answer to that question is: the resolution of the basilar

> --membrane (really the whole cochlea, which functions as a

> --mechanical unit) varies, depending on the frequency and amplitude

> --of the stimulus. And it varies somewhat from person to person.

> --Other than that, it's fixed.* If you want to stimulate as few

> --hairs as possible, the only thing you can do is play a pure sine

> --tone at low volume and

>

>     THANK YOU!  Now that you're done with all the random insults

> this is actually useful information that IS in tune with my

> questions and very useful in completing what I admited to be my

> gaps in knowledge about the basilar membrane.

Gaps in knowledge are insignificant. It's the approach to

learning that matters.

>    My point, restated with your more specific terms, is to hit

> those exact areas where the resolution is the highest.

Why do you want to do that?

> Since even in regular instruments the root tone is much louder

> than most of the overtones the root tone is the one I seek

> to align.

What I said was about pure tones only. When we're talking

about complex tones, the picture in the cochlea stays largely

the same (since it decomposes them into pure tones anyway).

But the picture in the brain is very different.

> --You still will get dozens of hair cells

> --moving, but anyway... ...does that answer your question?

>

>    Yes and yes...now did you really need to point all those

> insults

I haven't been insulting you, I've been trying to get you

to realize that your approach is seriously limiting your

success in your stated goals. And until you do, any progress

is strictly temporary.

> at me before revealing that valuable info (or perhaps

> similar info about your take on my topic of the use of

> difference tones via using PHI (or other noble numbers that

> produce similar proportions) as a generator)? :-)

I long ago pointed you to the Keenan/Schulter work on

"metastable intervals" -- have you studied it?

> BTW...suppose you divide the two intervals of a triad

_Which_ two? There are three intervals in any triad.

-Carl

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

> Dare I ask...Herman, in your opinion what are some of the best
> books around of microtonal music?

I'm not Herman, but I did recommend you read a book. I didn't
hear back from you whether you planned to read it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:

>    How so...is the picture in the brain very different?

I don't think we'll get anywhere going down a theory rabbit
hole right now. Instead, we should focus on what you're
observing.

> All I know so far is, for example (at least subjectively IE
> for me), it seems to take a good percentage (say 5-10%) of the
> stress of hearing even a full instrument playing a note by
> adjusting it up or down a few cents

I don't think this is English. Care to try again? As already
mentioned, observations may be reported in the following format:

"I played 1 1.2334 1.8605 and it sounded tense. Then I
played 1 1.24 and 1.861 and it sounded more relaxed."

> to align the root tone of the instrument to "those exact
> areas where the resolution is the highest".  And if instruments
> are indeed reduced to pure tones in the cochlea, should not it
> help to have those first few overtones (often the loudest by
> far in the instrument) aligned to the areas of highest
> resolution in the ear?

The critical bandwidth is a smooth function of frequency
throughout the hearing range. Musical sounds are complex
tones, and even low-pitched musical sounds have harmonics
across much of the hearing range. The brain uses this
information to determine the pitch. Throughout the bread
and butter range of music, human pitch discrimination
varies little.

>     Ok, I am confused here...I still don't see what is so
> ignorant about my approach,

You don't have an approach! At least not one you've managed
to communicate here. It seems likely you don't know enough
of the basics to be able to isolate things and test them in
order to reach conclusions. I'm fairly certain you don't
know what "JI" is, for example, even though that doesn't seem
to stop you from making proclamations about it.

>minus that I'm choosing not to take a good chunk of tuning
>history (esp. that related to JI) into my theories.

As I've explained, you don't need history and you don't
have any theories.

> --I long ago pointed you to the Keenan/Schulter work on
> --"metastable intervals" -- have you studied it?
> Yes, but ... He's attempting to use PHI to generate maximum
> entropy while I'm searching for minimum entropy

The areas of minimum entropy are JI. You can use a MOS
based on phi to get near to them, but that seems quite an
indirect approach, wouldn't you say?

> in fact, the theory
> mentioned in the paper seems pretty close to the POLAR
> OPPOSITE of both what I do and am aiming to do using PHI.

You can try to do something with phi all day long and it
won't make a lick of difference. Back in reality, phi
does what phi does. We can only discover what that is.
We can't make it do what we want.

> ************************************************

It's generally unnecessary to fill posts with lots of
stars and capital letters.

> > BTW...suppose you divide the two intervals of a triad -ME
> --_Which_ two? There are three intervals in any triad. -CARL
>
> Say the triad is 5/7/9.
> The first interval is 7/5, the second is 9/7.

...and the third is 9/5. Or maybe the first was 7/5,
the second 9/5, and the third 9/7. That's why you have
to be specific.

> The >>SUM<< of the first and second is 9/5

>>PRODUCT<<

> And my point, again, is that, in regards to the
> PHI tuning IE PHI^X/2^Y...that the first interval
> over the second is the same ratio as the SUM over
> the first...which is 1.618033...

OK, great. How many of the triads in your scale have
this property? Feel free to show your work.

And: Why is it desirable?

> This is how PHI can
> be used to create some "ridiculously symmetrical"
> difference tones without "resorting" to having the
> first and second interval equal each other (as the
> straight harmonic series does).

The first and second interval (as you define them) are
not equal in any JI triads until the 9-limit, when there
appear a few chords like 1:3:9. Such chords never occur
in triads composed of consecutive harmonics. So I don't
know what you mean here.

-Carl

  To put it simply, Herman had replied to you and I was replying to Herman, not you (argh).

--I didn't hear back from you whether you planned to read it.
   Yes I read the PHI article and blatantly did not agree with it (and, yes, I did read it and replied about it before, basically stating that it was using PHI to generate MAXIMUM harmonic entropy/dissonance where-as I am searching for consonance...IE the paper addresses the polar opposite goal of what I am doing and seems blatant irrelevant toward my goal).

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 9:49 AM

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

> Dare I ask...Herman, in your opinion what are some of the best

> books around of microtonal music?

I'm not Herman, but I did recommend you read a book. I didn't

hear back from you whether you planned to read it.

-Carl

--I don't think this is English. Care to try again? As already

--mentioned, observations may be reported in the following format:
  
    Ok, here we go....
    To my ears, playing, say a note around 1.513-1.515 times a middle C in UNISON (IE not at the same time as any other note) sounds about 5-10% less stressed to my ears as 1.5 times the middle C.

--Musical sounds are complex tones, and even low-pitched musical --sounds have harmonics across much of the hearing range.
However, the lower ones are much louder, in most cases...even if the higher ones hit, say 14khz+.
--The brain uses this information to determine the pitch.
   However...if an instruments root tone changes slightly, so does the whole perception of pitch IE that's why a 1.515 times the middle C, even when played in unison, has a significantly different "color tone" than 1.5 times the middle C...correct?
  There seem to be areas in the spectrum of about 100hz-4000hz
where even the slightest change in pitch completely changes the emotional feel (relaxed or tense) of a sound.  A more extreme example is transposing the same melody from one key to another within 12TET: my ears have always hinted to me clearly...that some keys have similar "tonal color" vs. each other and some don't.  Hence virtually all songs only use a limited number of transpositions.
*****************************************************************
--You don't have an approach! At least not one you've managed
---to communicate here. It seems likely you don't know enough
---of the basics to be able to isolate things and test them in
---order to reach conclusions. I'm fairly certain you don't
---know what "JI" is, for example, even though that doesn't seem
--to stop you from making proclamations about it.
   And there you go leaving the topic in question to focus on insulting me...yet again.  Yes, I
know what JI is...in fact, remember when I was working almost exclusive on scales related by ratios of whole numbers (even going to the extreme of making utonally linear x/16 scale which was simply part of the harmonic series)?
   Been there, done that, no longer all that interested in working with it anymore...but just (perhaps) because I don't think it's the best thing since sliced bread does not indirectly give you the right to accuse me of not knowing it from out of the blue and be justified in doing to.
*********************************************************************

--You can try to do something with phi all day long and it
---won't make a lick of difference. Back in reality, phi
--does what phi does. We can only discover what that is.
--We can't make it do what we want.
   You keep preaching to me the gospel of backing up everything you say with papers, books, and math.  So statements like this seem to say there's either a blunt inconsistency in your ethics...or you're going quite out of usual ways in order to flame me.  Neither of these, of course, would contribute anything to this discussion, though.

--The areas of minimum entropy are JI. You can use a MOS
---based on phi to get near to them, but that seems quite an
---indirect approach, wouldn't you say?
    I WILL agree with you that the areas of maximum harmonic entropy on Sethares' curve (assuming use of whole numbered timbres) will generate maximum dissonance.  And that the valleys (which spell out diatonic JI notes) represent the lowest AVERAGE dissonance but NOT the points where the highest dissonance between any 2 notes is at the lowest point INDIVIDUALLY.
    In other work, I don't agree that the minimum points are the one way to produce the best consonance and I don't believe looking for the best "average consonance" is necessarily the only good way to acheive consonance (in reality, it means making some intervals sound significantly more natural than others).
  Case in point...according the Sethares dissonance curves the valleys
(minimum dissonance points) are at different heights!  This indirectly appears to open up the question of how to make them the same height IE give all intervals similar sourness rather than having some far more pure than others.

  I actually sent this question to Sethares and he agree.  He also added one way of solving the issue is changing the amplitude of harmonics in the timbre until one gets the valleys to match at the same height...but this, of course, would also move the scale out of the "JI valleys".

************************************************************************
--The first and second interval (as you define them) are
--not equal in any JI triads until the 9-limit, when there
--appear a few chords like 1:3:9. Such chords never occur
--in triads composed of consecutive harmonics. So I don't
--know what you mean here.
    Admittedly bad explanation on my part.  I was attempting to refer to the equality in difference tones between any three consecutive partials in the harmonic series.  But, yes, I'd also assume, based on that, that a triad like 1:3:9 sounds very very pure based on the fact the difference tone between 1 and 3 and the one between 3 and 9 are the same frequency.

-Michael

> --I didn't hear back from you whether you planned to read it.
>    Yes I read the PHI article and blatantly did not agree with
> it (and, yes, I did read it and replied about it before, basically
> stating that it was using PHI to generate MAXIMUM harmonic
> entropy/dissonance where-as I am searching for consonance...IE
> the paper addresses the polar opposite goal of what I am doing
> and seems blatant irrelevant toward my goal).

I sent a link to a _book_ on Amazon. Have you, or do you
plan to, read it?

-Carl

--I sent a link to a _book_ on Amazon. Have you, or do you
--plan to, read it?
    Which book?  I honestly don't recall getting a link...but if you could send it again I'll gladly take a look.

-Michael

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 12:23 PM

> --I didn't hear back from you whether you planned to read it.

>    Yes I read the PHI article and blatantly did not agree with

> it (and, yes, I did read it and replied about it before, basically

> stating that it was using PHI to generate MAXIMUM harmonic

> entropy/dissonance where-as I am searching for consonance.. .IE

> the paper addresses the polar opposite goal of what I am doing

> and seems blatant irrelevant toward my goal).

I sent a link to a _book_ on Amazon. Have you, or do you

plan to, read it?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
>
> --I don't think this is English. Care to try again? As already
>
> --mentioned, observations may be reported in the following format:
>   
>     Ok, here we go....
>     To my ears, playing, say a note around 1.513-1.515 times a
> middle C in UNISON (IE not at the same time as any other note)
> sounds about 5-10% less stressed to my ears as 1.5 times the
> middle C.

In music theory, there are harmonic intervals and melodic
intervals. The former refers to two notes played together,
and the latter refers to two notes played individually,
one immediately after the other.

Discussions here almost always concern harmonic intervals.

A unison is an interval.

Above, are you talking about a harmonic unison, a melodic
unison, or just about single pitches?

If you're talking about single pitches, observations should
be reported in Hz. if possible.

There are pitch color effects related to perfect pitch that
you could be hearing.

>   There seem to be areas in the spectrum of about 100hz-4000hz
> where even the slightest change in pitch completely changes the
> emotional feel (relaxed or tense) of a sound.

Almost all music takes place in this range. If you're really
talking about pitch color why are you going into all this
business about consonance?

> A more extreme example is transposing the same melody from one
> key to another within 12TET: my ears have always hinted to me
> clearly...that some keys have similar "tonal color" vs. each
> other and some don't.  Hence virtually all songs only use a
> limited number of transpositions.

You seem to be talking about pitch color. Almost all people
can sense it, though they are often unaware of it. People
with absolute pitch (aka perfect pitch) hear it very clearly.

> Yes, I know what JI is...

OK then, please list all 7-limit tetrads whose pitches
lie between 1/1 and 2/1. You may omit inversions.

> --The areas of minimum entropy are JI. You can use a MOS
> ---based on phi to get near to them, but that seems quite an
> ---indirect approach, wouldn't you say?
>     I WILL agree with you that the areas of maximum harmonic
> entropy on Sethares' curve (assuming use of whole numbered
> timbres) will generate maximum dissonance.

For dyads, that's generally true, though Sethares' approach
is timbre-specific and harmonic entropy is timbre-agnostic.

>And that the valleys (which spell out diatonic JI notes)
>represent the lowest AVERAGE dissonance but NOT the points
>where the highest dissonance between any 2 notes is at the
>lowest point INDIVIDUALLY.

It would take an army to decipher all the stuff like this
you write. I would suggest typing out your replies, and
then reading them over the next day from the point of view
of a person who is not you and see if they still make sense.

>   Case in point...according the Sethares dissonance curves the
> valleys (minimum dissonance points) are at different heights!
> This indirectly appears to open up the question of how to make
> them the same height IE give all intervals similar sourness
> rather than having some far more pure than others.

Sorry, you can't change reality with mere wishes. Sethares
didn't dream up a pretty curve, he derived one from
psychoacoustic principles. If you want to make a _scale_ whose
intervals are all at the same level of dissonance, that's
another matter.

Sethares might just draw a line parallel to the x axis and
put the intervals where it intersected the dissonance curve
into a scale over 1/1. And that will work, if you only play
intervals up from 1/1. But as I explained last year, if you
play music that modulates through the modes of this scale,
the approach is invalid. One must look at the Rothenberg
interval matrix of the scale, and populate it with the
intervals taken from the dissonance curve interception
mentioned, but this is not a trivial task. Here is where
metastable intervals may come in handy, but I've never seen
a metastable scale demonstrated to contain only metastable
intervals. One easy way to do it is to pick an equal
temperament with poor consonances, such as 11-ET, since
equal temperaments have the same intervals in every mode.

>   I actually sent this question to Sethares and he agree.

If you can share that letter here, we can discuss it.

> He also added one way of solving the issue is changing the
> amplitude of harmonics in the timbre until one gets the
> valleys to match at the same height...

That just gives you more intervals to choose from, but it
does NOT address the issue with the other modes of the scale,
mentioned above. It would also move the curve out of
agreement with harmonic entropy, which causes problems
(for Sethares' theory).

> --The first and second interval (as you define them) are
> --not equal in any JI triads until the 9-limit, when there
> --appear a few chords like 1:3:9. Such chords never occur
> --in triads composed of consecutive harmonics. So I don't
> --know what you mean here.
>     Admittedly bad explanation on my part.  I was attempting
> to refer to the equality in difference tones between any three
> consecutive partials in the harmonic series.

That's a real phenomenon, but once again, difference tones
are not very significant in musical consonance (though they do
have some bearing).

> But, yes, I'd also assume, based on that, that a triad like
> 1:3:9 sounds very very pure based on the fact the difference
> tone between 1 and 3 and the one between 3 and 9 are the same
> frequency.

300-100 = 200; 900-300 = 600

But, when talking difference tones, one does have to compute
the difference tones between all partials (or at least, the
first 6 partials), so this kind of comparison is fairly
limited, even if you'd gotten it right.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
> --I sent a link to a _book_ on Amazon. Have you, or do you
> --plan to, read it?
>     Which book?  I honestly don't recall getting a link...but if you could send it again I'll gladly take a look.
>
> -Michael

Please refer to:
/tuning/topicId_82592.html#82694

Also, please read posts more carefully before replying. It's
the least courtesy you can show to your correspondents and to
the list as a whole. This book thing isn't the first thing
you've missed in my posts which you've replied to over the
past few days.

-Carl

---Discussions here almost always concern harmonic intervals. -CARL
     Agreed...that's where it's becoming rocky territory: the fact I'm trying to discuss the best notes for played in unison (assuming alignment with areas of sharpest response of the basilar membrane helps) for one parts of my "3 part theory"...and this leans much closer to your definition of "melodic intervals".

--Above, are you talking about a harmonic unison, a melodic
--unison, or just about single pitches? -CARL
   I believe, according to what the words sound like, closer to single pitches as there is no concept of lending "toward monophonic melody" in that part of my theory.

--If you're talking about single pitches, observations should
--be reported in Hz. if possible.
   This makes sense.  I will document this number by number (in HZ) soon...although, of course, that may take a while as a lot of number crunching will be involved to double-check all the conversions...it's a very good point.

--There are pitch color effects related to perfect pitch that
--you could be hearing. -CARL
   Could be...one thing I can tell you is that, to my mind, they seem quite obvious, for whatever reason, when playing a note in unison.
    However this effect seems much present when intervals are added...particularly intervals from or near whole-numbered ratio).  This is likely why I hadn't noticed this phenomena before when working with slightly de-tuning certain notes in 12TET chords ages ago, for example.

--Almost all music takes place in this range. If you're really
--talking about pitch color why are you going into all this
--business about consonance? -CARL
   Simple...I hear certain tones that sound either BRIGHTER or DARKER in tone color by themselves.  And I've found...if I take a bunch of tones that sound bright in unison and put them together...the resulting tone is ALSO brighter.  Furthermore taking a bunch of bright tones seems to increase the brains tolerance for consonance and make it think something is much more relaxed than it "should be" according to the mathematical consonance.  The effect is similar to comparing a minor and major chord in pure sine waves...the same experiment done on this list a while ago.
   Basically; my theory is it tricks the mind into thinking there's more consonance than there is mathematically, thus helping form a "different kind of
periodicity".
********************************************************************
>And that the valleys (which spell out diatonic JI notes)

>represent the lowest AVERAGE dissonance but NOT the points

>where the highest dissonance between any 2 notes is at the

>lowest point INDIVIDUALLY. -ME
    Ok, let me restate that.  Sethares curve is formed to optimize the LOWEST AVERAGE DISSONANCE for a scale.  Meanwhile I am thinking about optimizing the LOWEST MAXIMUM DISSONANCE between any two intervals in the scale.  I don't think what I'm saying is that cryptic...I wrote about it to (William) Sethares and he apparently understood it the first time around...though I'll admit it's a tricky concept that goes pretty deep into his theories.\

--OK then, please list all 7-limit tetrads whose pitches
---lie between 1/1 and 2/1. You may omit inversions.
Here are at least a few:

6/5/4/3
--------
7/6/5/4
--------
8/6/5/4
8/7/5/4
--------
9/8/7/6
9/7/6/5
9/8/6/5
9/8/7/5
-----------
10/7/6/5
10/8/7/6
10/8/6/5
10/9/8/7
10/8/7/6
10/7/6/5
10/8/7/5
----------- ("11" omitted due to having a prime factor of 11, which is > the 7 of 7-limit)-----------------
12/9/8/7
12/10/9/8
12/10/8/7
12/10/7/6
12/10/8/6
12/9/7/6
12/8/7/6
...................
(this could take ages...but keep going up without using any number with a prime factor over 7 to get the rest)
****************************************************
--Sethares didn't dream up a pretty curve, he derived one from
---psychoacoustic principles.
   No sh*t sherlock...I have known that from the get go when he first got me interested in
microtonality.  Again, his curve puts the focus on minimizing average dissonance...and could obviously have the formula tweaked to minimize maximum dissonance between any two partials (after all, it all boils down to using P&L's roughness formula between combinations of partials, which we both agree is true and valid).

--If you want to make a _scale_ whose intervals are all at the same level --of dissonance, that's another matter.
Which is exactly the direction I am going in...it turns out. :-)
****************************************************************
--One easy way to do it is to pick an equal
--temperament with poor consonances, such as 11-ET, since
--equal temperaments have the same intervals in every mode.
   But then you viciously violate Plomp&L's theory of consonance (with regard to overtones mixing together in the area of maximum harmonic entropy). And, of course, we both agree numerous
times that P&L's theory is a correct (if incomplete) view of consonance.
****************************************************************

--That's a real phenomenon, but once again, difference tones
--are not very significant in musical consonance (though they do
--have some bearing).
   You'd think they'd have to...as the harmonic series itself is a hugely obvious example of constant (and, obviously, constant is a very simple type of proportionality) difference tones.

> But, yes, I'd also assume, based on that, that a triad like

> 1:3:9 sounds very very pure based on the fact the difference

> tone between 1 and 3 and the one between 3 and 9 are the same

> frequency. -ME

--300-100 = 200; 900-300 = 600  -CARL
  Ugh...my bad...I meant something like 100 300 500.  Even in your example, though, the possible difference tones all retain a greatest common multiple of 100hz.

  But, anyhow, my point is all combinations of difference tone in the PHI tuning are related by PHI times another difference tone...so the beating  is all coordinated and predictable in that sense, rather than random (IE with tens to hundreds of combinations of difference tones without any underlying common multiple). 

--But, when talking difference tones, one does have to compute
--the difference tones between all partials (or at least, the
--first 6 partials), so this kind of comparison is fairly
--limited, even if you'd gotten it right.

   So you are saying, the first 6 harmonics have to match (ALA aligning timbre with tuning)? 
    If so I get what you are saying...however I do think, between the fact two very closely aligned tones are viewed by the brain as one AND the "basilar brightness" theory I mentioned above...that some slack can be introduced (IE they don't have to match exactly...though I agree too many combinations of, say, two overtones in an area of maximum harmonic entropy relative to each other is obviously a problem).
 
-Michael

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 1:59 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, djtrancendance@ ... wrote:

>

> --I don't think this is English. Care to try again? As already

>

> --mentioned, observations may be reported in the following format:

>   

>     Ok, here we go....

>     To my ears, playing, say a note around 1.513-1.515 times a

> middle C in UNISON (IE not at the same time as any other note)

> sounds about 5-10% less stressed to my ears as 1.5 times the

> middle C.

In music theory, there are harmonic intervals and melodic

intervals. The former refers to two notes played together,

and the latter refers to two notes played individually,

one immediately after the other.

Discussions here almost always concern harmonic intervals.

A unison is an interval.

Above, are you talking about a harmonic unison, a melodic

unison, or just about single pitches?

If you're talking about single pitches, observations should

be reported in Hz. if possible.

There are pitch color effects related to perfect pitch that

you could be hearing.

>   There seem to be areas in the spectrum of about 100hz-4000hz

> where even the slightest change in pitch completely changes the

> emotional feel (relaxed or tense) of a sound.

Almost all music takes place in this range. If you're really

talking about pitch color why are you going into all this

business about consonance?

> A more extreme example is transposing the same melody from one

> key to another within 12TET: my ears have always hinted to me

> clearly...that some keys have similar "tonal color" vs. each

> other and some don't.  Hence virtually all songs only use a

> limited number of transpositions.

You seem to be talking about pitch color. Almost all people

can sense it, though they are often unaware of it. People

with absolute pitch (aka perfect pitch) hear it very clearly.

> Yes, I know what JI is...

OK then, please list all 7-limit tetrads whose pitches

lie between 1/1 and 2/1. You may omit inversions.

> --The areas of minimum entropy are JI. You can use a MOS

> ---based on phi to get near to them, but that seems quite an

> ---indirect approach, wouldn't you say?

>     I WILL agree with you that the areas of maximum harmonic

> entropy on Sethares' curve (assuming use of whole numbered

> timbres) will generate maximum dissonance.

For dyads, that's generally true, though Sethares' approach

is timbre-specific and harmonic entropy is timbre-agnostic.

>And that the valleys (which spell out diatonic JI notes)

>represent the lowest AVERAGE dissonance but NOT the points

>where the highest dissonance between any 2 notes is at the

>lowest point INDIVIDUALLY.

It would take an army to decipher all the stuff like this

you write. I would suggest typing out your replies, and

then reading them over the next day from the point of view

of a person who is not you and see if they still make sense.

>   Case in point...according the Sethares dissonance curves the

> valleys (minimum dissonance points) are at different heights!

> This indirectly appears to open up the question of how to make

> them the same height IE give all intervals similar sourness

> rather than having some far more pure than others.

Sorry, you can't change reality with mere wishes. Sethares

didn't dream up a pretty curve, he derived one from

psychoacoustic principles. If you want to make a _scale_ whose

intervals are all at the same level of dissonance, that's

another matter.

Sethares might just draw a line parallel to the x axis and

put the intervals where it intersected the dissonance curve

into a scale over 1/1. And that will work, if you only play

intervals up from 1/1. But as I explained last year, if you

play music that modulates through the modes of this scale,

the approach is invalid. One must look at the Rothenberg

interval matrix of the scale, and populate it with the

intervals taken from the dissonance curve interception

mentioned, but this is not a trivial task. Here is where

metastable intervals may come in handy, but I've never seen

a metastable scale demonstrated to contain only metastable

intervals. One easy way to do it is to pick an equal

temperament with poor consonances, such as 11-ET, since

equal temperaments have the same intervals in every mode.

>   I actually sent this question to Sethares and he agree.

If you can share that letter here, we can discuss it.

> He also added one way of solving the issue is changing the

> amplitude of harmonics in the timbre until one gets the

> valleys to match at the same height...

That just gives you more intervals to choose from, but it

does NOT address the issue with the other modes of the scale,

mentioned above. It would also move the curve out of

agreement with harmonic entropy, which causes problems

(for Sethares' theory).

> --The first and second interval (as you define them) are

> --not equal in any JI triads until the 9-limit, when there

> --appear a few chords like 1:3:9. Such chords never occur

> --in triads composed of consecutive harmonics. So I don't

> --know what you mean here.

>     Admittedly bad explanation on my part.  I was attempting

> to refer to the equality in difference tones between any three

> consecutive partials in the harmonic series.

That's a real phenomenon, but once again, difference tones

are not very significant in musical consonance (though they do

have some bearing).

> But, yes, I'd also assume, based on that, that a triad like

> 1:3:9 sounds very very pure based on the fact the difference

> tone between 1 and 3 and the one between 3 and 9 are the same

> frequency.

300-100 = 200; 900-300 = 600

But, when talking difference tones, one does have to compute

the difference tones between all partials (or at least, the

first 6 partials), so this kind of comparison is fairly

limited, even if you'd gotten it right.

-Carl

Mike,

I think that indeed, as mentioned by others, you may have a highly
developed relative pitch or absolute pitch.

Pitch class has an inherent affect on your perception of pitch but I find
that unisons should sound equal compared to each other.

That is to say C+C and D+D should sound identical - excepting for the fact
one is higher in pitch.

I think that your perception, your personal sense of hearing, may be
coloring your analysis of what is happening.

To give an example of this sort of thing:

I happen to be red-green color deficient. So, in most states (not all mind
you!) a green light does not look green. It is dirty white. It has no color
whatsoever.
Cross a state line and the filter comes from a different manufacturer - it
could look green to me. However, only some 8% of males have this. BUt it is
so hard to tell. I can't relate the amount of grief I got from the nuns for
confusing colors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

Also, I have a mild form of synaesthesia which actually aids my
improvisation and composing....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaesthesia

However - these traits of perception vary from individual to individual.
Perhaps you can develop tunings based solely on your perception - but it
will probably bring a world of hurt to assume that your perception is
identical to the perception of the next individual. This is probably the
reason things like those graphs are based on _average_ perceptions.

And actually when you think about it - this is a good thing because it means
there is a world of variety to share.

Chris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:

> --Above, are you talking about a harmonic unison, a melodic
> --unison, or just about single pitches? -CARL
>    I believe, according to what the words sound like, closer to
> single pitches as there is no concept of lending "toward
> monophonic melody" in that part of my theory.

It may be worth mentioning that the definitions I gave of
harmonic interval, melodic interval, and unison are not
my definitions. They are absolutely standard in normal,
regular music theory. They're taught in the first week of
every 100-level music theory class. My high school music
theory class, too. And most instrument pedagogy books
(e.g. "John Thompson's 2nd book of clarinet").

>    Could be...one thing I can tell you is that, to my mind,
> they seem quite obvious, for whatever reason, when playing a
> note in unison.

I'm still not getting it. A unison involves two notes,
not one. Are you talking about two notes or one?

> --Almost all music takes place in this range. If you're really
> --talking about pitch color why are you going into all this
> --business about consonance? -CARL
>    Simple...I hear certain tones that sound either BRIGHTER or
> DARKER in tone color by themselves.  And I've found...if I take
> a bunch of tones that sound bright in unison and put them
> together...the resulting tone is ALSO brighter.

Sounds like a pitch color effect. Either that, or priming
from consonance effects (if you're listening to other notes
before the test note).

>Basically; my theory is it tricks the mind into thinking there's
>more consonance than there is mathematically, thus helping form
>a "different kind of periodicity".

Here's a great example of pseudoscientific bulls___. Read it
a few more times and maybe you'll get better at recognizing it.

> Ok, let me restate that.  Sethares curve is formed to optimize
> the LOWEST AVERAGE DISSONANCE for a scale.

Wrong.

> Meanwhile I am thinking about optimizing the LOWEST MAXIMUM
> DISSONANCE between any two intervals in the scale.

I think you're maybe getting at minimizing the maximum
dissonance, which is generally called minimax optimization,
and is a real workhorse in the 'regular mapping paradigm'
developed on this list.

> I don't think what I'm saying is that cryptic... I wrote about
> it to (William) Sethares and he apparently understood it the
> first time around...though I'll admit it's a tricky concept
> that goes pretty deep into his theories.

Again, if you can share something specific here, we can
discuss it. At the moment I think he either misunderstood
you, or you didn't say to him what you just said to me.

> --OK then, please list all 7-limit tetrads whose pitches
> ---lie between 1/1 and 2/1. You may omit inversions.
> Here are at least a few:
>
> 6/5/4/3
> --------
> 7/6/5/4
> --------
> 8/6/5/4
> 8/7/5/4
> --------
> 9/8/7/6
> 9/7/6/5
> 9/8/6/5
> 9/8/7/5

This last group are 9-limit chords.

> (this could take ages...but keep going up without using any
> number with a prime factor over 7 to get the rest)

When talking about chords, almost always odd limit is
intended.

The list of chords I asked for is finite, and actually
rather short.

The fact that you obviously can't complete this task makes
you utterly unqualified to make the kind of sweeping statements
about "JI" that you've been making right and left (or do I
need to dig some up and quote them for you?). Will there ever
be a day when you post a humble retraction of them?

> --One easy way to do it is to pick an equal
> --temperament with poor consonances, such as 11-ET, since
> --equal temperaments have the same intervals in every mode.
>    But then you viciously violate Plomp&L's theory of consonance
>(with regard to overtones mixing together in the area of maximum
>harmonic entropy).

I don't get it. Do you want consonance or not? If you
want have a scale with a uniform level of consonance, it
must either avoid consonant intervals entirely, or it must
be consonant when played as one big chord. That's what
you started with, and the only way to do it is either
with a harmonic series segment, or with modified timbres,
or with fewer than 7 notes.

> --That's a real phenomenon, but once again, difference tones
> --are not very significant in musical consonance (though they do
> --have some bearing).
>    You'd think they'd have to...as the harmonic series itself
> is a hugely obvious example of constant (and, obviously,
> constant is a very simple type of proportionality) difference
> tones.

The harmonic series is consonant for a different reason.

> --300-100 = 200; 900-300 = 600  -CARL
>   Ugh...my bad...I meant something like 100 300 500.  Even in
> your example, though, the possible difference tones all retain
> a greatest common multiple of 100hz.

The greatest common _divisor_ of 200 and 600 is 200.
The _least_ common multiple is 600.
I don't know what a greatest common multiple is.

>   But, anyhow, my point is all combinations of difference tone
> in the PHI tuning are related by PHI times another difference
> tone...so the beating

You keep saying that, but you haven't shown it. I asked you
how many of the chords in your scale have this property, and
you haven't responded.

> --But, when talking difference tones, one does have to compute
> --the difference tones between all partials (or at least, the
> --first 6 partials), so this kind of comparison is fairly
> --limited, even if you'd gotten it right.
>
>    So you are saying, the first 6 harmonics have to match
> (ALA aligning timbre with tuning)? 
> If so I get what you are saying...

That's not what I was saying. There are difference tones
between the harmonics, not just the fundamentals.

-Carl

Carl wrote:
>The greatest common _divisor_ of 200 and 600 is 200.
>The _least_ common multiple is 600.
>I don't know what a greatest common multiple is.

Dear Carl. From your futile efforts I got three conclusions:
1. The greatest common multiple of any two integers exists and is always the
same: the numerable infinite!
2. Not only that! The least common divisor of any two integers is one!!
3. Pigs don't fly!!!

Good night everybody,

Claudio

Michael Sheiman wrote:

> Dare I ask...Herman, in your opinion what are some of the best books > around of microtonal music?

Most of what I've read in books has been in books dealing with subjects like musical acoustics and music from around the world, not specifically books about tuning, e.g. _The Acoustical Foundations of Music_ by John Backus (which has a chapter on "Intervals, Scales, Tuning, and Temperament"). Most of the good tuning resources have been online, like Paul Poletti's "Temperaments for Dummies" or the Anaphoria site. As far as books, there's William Sethares' _Tuning, Timbre, Spectrum, Scale_; Scott Wilkinson's "Tuning In" is a good introduction although fairly basic and not very long; and of course there's Harry Partch's _Genesis of a Music_ which goes into detail about his use of JI. Those are just the ones I've read; I'm sure there are others.

Well here's something: The number of 7-limit tetrads with
pitches falling in the compass of a single octave, counting
all inversions of each chord only once, is...... (drumroll)

2

And here they are:

1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4
1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4

If we go up to the 9-limit, we keep those and add...

* each 4-tone subset of 1/1 9/8 5/4 3/2 7/4 and each
4-tone subset of its utonal mirror, 1/1 7/6 7/5 14/9 7/4

* 3:5:9:15 and 3:7:9:21, which are their own utonal
inverses (!)

And that's it.

The number of such tetrads when "7-limit" is a prime
limit (rather than an odd limit as above) is, of course,
infinite.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Claudio Di Veroli" <dvc@...> wrote:
>
> Carl wrote:
> >The greatest common _divisor_ of 200 and 600 is 200.
> >The _least_ common multiple is 600.
> >I don't know what a greatest common multiple is.
>
> Dear Carl. From your futile efforts I got three conclusions:
> 1. The greatest common multiple of any two integers exists and
> is always the same: the numerable infinite!
> 2. Not only that! The least common divisor of any two integers
> is one!!
> 3. Pigs don't fly!!!
>
> Good night everybody,
>
> Claudio

Lets see how much I got this right...

1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4

is root, major 3rd, 5th, and.... minor 7th?

1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4

is root, minor 3rd, ???, minor 7th?

what is 7/5?

Am I close here?

Thanks,

Chris

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> Well here's something: The number of 7-limit tetrads with
> pitches falling in the compass of a single octave, counting
> all inversions of each chord only once, is...... (drumroll)
>
> 2
>
> And here they are:
>
> 1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4
> 1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4
>
> -Carl
>
>

Ugh...
   If I have it right
A) Just Intonation is any tuning where frequencies are related by ratios of whole numbers
B) 7-limit means having a highest prime factor of 7
C) A tetrad is, simply, a 4 note chord

   So what, exactly, makes something like 9/8/7/5 (or my many other example chords) illegal?

--1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4
--1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4
   Apparently both of these chord are simple harmonic series: the first perfectly u-tonally related (fractions can be converted to x/4)....and the other perfectly o-tonally related (7/x). 
IE
4/4 5/4 6/4 7/4 AND
7/7 7/6 7/5 7/4

    But...the funny thing is most JI scales I have seen do not have every single note in them perfectly o-tonally or u-tonally related.  So, Carl, what's the restriction in JI that I am missing here?   Or is that perfect u-tonality/o-tonality itself the restriction?  I figure, in that case (if that is indeed the case), you could have simply asked "what perfectly o/u-tonal 4-tone chords fit within an octave in 7-limit?"

-Michael

--- On Sat, 4/11/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 11, 2009, 2:08 PM

Lets see how much I got this right...

1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4

is root, major 3rd, 5th, and.... minor 7th?

1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4

is root, minor 3rd, ???, minor 7th?

what is 7/5?

Am I close here?

Thanks,

Chris

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

Well here's something: The number of 7-limit tetrads with

pitches falling in the compass of a single octave, counting

all inversions of each chord only once, is...... (drumroll)

2

And here they are:

1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4

1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4

-Carl

--Right. Though the interval is within the "field of attraction"*

--of 3:2.
--* Harry Parth, Genesis of a Music. Read it.
--Here's the Amazon link:
--http://tinyurl.com/cav33u
    That was a tiny link in one HUGE e-mail you wrote.  But I very quickly chose to pass it up (not the whole book, but the book as a reference for the topic I'm studying) as I'm not interested in how 303/200 and 3/2 are supposedly related by ANY mathematical process or theory.  Why?  Because my ears note a very significant difference between 1.515 (303/200) and 1.5 (3/2).  Simply...listening to any theory that say the ear tries to categorize these as the same is taking the opinion of math over my own ears...and doing so is simply against my ethics.  I aim to make music for listeners, not mathematicians...although I do also, of course, try to look for mathematical theories that DO agree with my ears to help explain "why I hear things how I do" whenever possible.

-Michael

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 2:02 PM

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

>

>

> --I sent a link to a _book_ on Amazon. Have you, or do you

> --plan to, read it?

> Which book? I honestly don't recall getting a link...but if you could send it again I'll gladly take a look.

>

> -Michael

Please refer to:

http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/tuning/ message/82694

Also, please read posts more carefully before replying. It's

the least courtesy you can show to your correspondents and to

the list as a whole. This book thing isn't the first thing

you've missed in my posts which you've replied to over the

past few days.

-Carl

Hi Chris,

> Lets see how much I got this right...
>
> 1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4
>
> is root, major 3rd, 5th, and.... minor 7th?

Yup. It's like a dominant 7th chord.

> 1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4
>
> is root, minor 3rd, ???, minor 7th?
>
> what is 7/5?
>
> Am I close here?

7/5 is a kind of tritone. 7/6 is a minor 3rd, or sometimes
it's called a "subminor 3rd", since it's narrower than the
minor 3rds we're used to. The closest thing to this chord
in 12-ET is the "half diminished 7th". But the half-dim 7th
sounds more like 5:6:7:9 (1/1 6/5 7/5 9/5).

The 1st inversion of the above chord is 1/1 6/5 3/2 12/7.
That sounds much like a minor 6th chord in 12-ET.

It may be worth mentioning that terms like "major 3rd" and
"minor 3rd" are based on the 7-tone diatonic scale, which
may not even exist in some tuning systems. These terms are
widely used by microtonalists anyway, but it does represent
a diatonic-centric way of thinking of things.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Ugh...
>    If I have it right
> A) Just Intonation is any tuning where frequencies are related
> by ratios of whole numbers

That's a good definition.

> B) 7-limit means having a highest prime factor of 7

Odd factor, usually. See also:

http://lumma.org/music/theory/TuningFAQ.txt

and do a Ctrl-F for "9-limit" to find the Q&A on limits.

> C) A tetrad is, simply, a 4 note chord

Yes.

>    So what, exactly, makes something like 9/8/7/5 (or my many
> other example chords) illegal?

It contains a factor of 9, making it a 9-limit chord.

> --1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4
> --1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4
>    Apparently both of these chord are simple harmonic series:
> the first perfectly u-tonally related (fractions can be
> converted to x/4)....

O-tonally related, but yes, it is also written 4:5:6:7.

>and the other perfectly o-tonally related (7/x).

U-tonally. Yes, 7/x.

>But...the funny thing is most JI scales I have seen do not have
>every single note in them perfectly o-tonally or u-tonally
>related.

Which JI scales have you been looking at?

>So, Carl, what's the restriction in JI that I am missing here?

There are different ways to define JI, and I don't have a
monopoly on that, but typically if someone asks for a list
of 7-limit tetrads, they're looking for the answer I
subsequently gave.

Probably the best definition of a o-limit JI scale is a scale
where any note can be connected to at least one other note by
an o-limit consonance. The classical 5-limit diatonic scale
meets this criterion:

5/3---5/4--15/8
/ \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \
4/3---1/1---3/2---9/8

In fact, as you can see from this diagram (if you view this
in a monospaced font), every note is connected to at least
two others via a consonant interval (5/4, 6/5, or 3/2).

>Or is that perfect u-tonality/o-tonality itself the restriction?

Interestingly, that turns out not to be the case. Chords
like 12:14:18:21 are not o- or utonalities. Partch missed
them. These are called ASS chords. Google for
"Anomalous Saturated Suspension".

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> --Right. Though the interval is within the "field of attraction"*
> --of 3:2.
> --* Harry Parth, Genesis of a Music. Read it.
> --Here's the Amazon link:
> --http://tinyurl.com/cav33u
>     That was a tiny link in one HUGE e-mail you wrote.

Believe it or not, I actually read every word of your HUGE
e-mails before replying.

>But I very quickly chose to pass it up (not the whole book,
>but the book as a reference for the topic I'm studying) as
>I'm not interested in how 303/200 and 3/2 are supposedly
>related by ANY mathematical process or theory.  Why?  Because
>my ears note a very significant difference between 1.515
>(303/200) and 1.5 (3/2).  Simply...listening to any theory
>that say the ear tries to categorize these as the same is
>taking the opinion of math over my own ears...

That's funny. Partch came up with the idea by doing very
careful listening. You're the one promoting numerology
based on phi.

-Carl

--Believe it or not, I actually read every word of your HUGE

--e-mails before replying.
   So do I but, admittedly, there are some parts I choose to not reply to or read in detail...particularly those that seem to obviously assume I'm aiming for a goal that is the opposite of what I am trying to do with my scale (IE your link concerning using PHI to find maximum average harmonic entropy when I'm looking for minimum maximum entropy (and in terms of things like pushing the valleys in Sethares dissonance curve to the same level, not minimax mean-tone or anything like that)).

--That's funny. Partch came up with the idea by doing very careful listening. You're the one --promoting numerology based on phi.
   Well, I don't ever say "what my ears hear is dead wrong" when it comes to tonal color.  What I do is find tonal "areas" by ears and only then look at existing mathematical theories and try to find common links.  My ear can hear things easily like the difference in
consonance between a major and minor chords with sine waves or between 10TET with normal timbres and Sethares-ian ones.  Plus it indirectly discovered tetra-chords without my even knowing the definition before (you told it to me later).  In general, I trust my ears: the only occasions where my ear "hurt" me were things like leading me from my tetrachord scale toward an x/16 o-tonally related scale which ended up being a plain old straight harmonic series and far less original, actually...than the tetrachord-based scales that preceeded it.

    I believe you that Partch was searching by ear, but I get a VERY strong sense he was searching my "ear to fit math"...rather than "searching for math that fit his ear".  And my ear, judging by examples above, has a pretty keen sense for both JI symmetry and non-JI symmetry and, if in doubt between math and hearing, I'll almost always choose hearing (nothing
personal).
************************************************************************************************
--You're the one promoting numerology

--based on phi.
   That's overstating it by far.
1)    Firstly, symmetry of difference tones is 1 out of 3 parts my theory, NOT the whole thing.
     Secondly, many numbers (esp. noble numbers) and numeric patterns can produce symmetry of overtones.  As I've said countless times, the harmonic series' overtones' having the same GREATEST COMMON FACTOR (yes, I was wrong before when I said 'common multiple') is one example of difference tone symmetry and a factor that seems to tie "why it works so well" to how, for example, noble number generate scales can also work very well.
    If anything, I'm simply saying "the harmonic series is not the only numeric way to concoct difference tone symmetry that can be please to the ear...in fact noble number generated scales have many many similar features concerning difference tones"

2)   It's not 'based on PHI' for another reason: a
WHOLE bunch of numbers from phi^x/2^y were not included together in the scale (IE around 1.30  and 1.33 at the same time) because, when used together, they completely violate Plomp and Llevelt's roughness theory.  I take a strategic subset if the PHI tuning, I don't just randomly dump the whole thing.
3) the whole "bright vs. dark" tone color issue is the third part of the theory and "aligning to areas of the basilar membrane of highest resolution with the root tone", like theory #2, has absolutely nothing to do with PHI.  In fact, that's why I made a point to give the example of 1.5 (3/2) vs. 1.505 (303/200)...neither of those are in my PHI scale!

     The reason a lot of my scale examples use PHI...is because they can easily use theory parts 1,2, and 3 above and not just 2 and 3.  I haven't brought up "2" as it seems clear we and most people on this list already agree with P&L's theory (those who
don't, feel free to say "I")...and I did bring up 3 several times OUTSIDE of the context of PHI, including the 3/2 vs. 303/200 example.

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 12:53 AM

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

> --Right. Though the interval is within the "field of attraction"*

> --of 3:2.

> --* Harry Parth, Genesis of a Music. Read it.

> --Here's the Amazon link:

> --http://tinyurl. com/cav33u

> That was a tiny link in one HUGE e-mail you wrote.

Believe it or not, I actually read every word of your HUGE

e-mails before replying.

>But I very quickly chose to pass it up (not the whole book,

>but the book as a reference for the topic I'm studying) as

>I'm not interested in how 303/200 and 3/2 are supposedly

>related by ANY mathematical process or theory. Why? Because

>my ears note a very significant difference between 1.515

>(303/200) and 1.5 (3/2). Simply...listening to any theory

>that say the ear tries to categorize these as the same is

>taking the opinion of math over my own ears...

That's funny. Partch came up with the idea by doing very

careful listening. You're the one promoting numerology

based on phi.

-Carl

--Mike,
--I think that indeed, as mentioned by others, you may have a highly developed relative pitch --or absolute pitch.
   That I may indeed (I'm actually starting to believe this as it has been mentioned so much)...and thus it may matter more to my ears than other peoples.
  However when I have shown people the two examples

http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav
(original tuning: with some "dark" colored tones)

http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav  (with all dark colored tones slightly re-tuned to "bright" colored tones by altering each tone in the above scale by only a few cents!)

...the results so far have been overwhelming: even people who can't tell the color difference of tones in unison CAN feel a major difference when a
large set of bright tones is applied to improve the consonance of chords.
*************************************************************
--but it will probably bring a world of hurt to assume that your perception is identical to the --perception of the next individual.

    Could very well be...which is partly why I wish people would simply respond to questions like "does one of the examples above sound much more consonant than the other...yes or no?" 
.....instead of delving into somewhat irrelevant questions like "so is one PHI and one JI?" (answer: both are the same PHI scale except one is very slightly detuned) and "how well does Mike know JI?"

-Michael

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: Chris Vaisvil
<chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 3:32 PM

Mike,

I think that indeed, as mentioned by others, you may have a highly developed relative pitch or absolute pitch.

Pitch class has an inherent affect on your perception of pitch but I find that unisons should sound equal compared to each other.

That is to say C+C and D+D should sound identical - excepting for the fact one is higher in pitch.

I think that your perception, your personal sense of hearing, may be coloring your analysis of what is happening.

To give an example of this sort of thing:

I happen to be red-green color deficient. So, in most states (not all mind you!) a green light does not look green. It is dirty white. It has no color whatsoever.
Cross a state line and the filter comes from a different manufacturer - it could look green to me. However, only some 8% of males have this. BUt it is so hard to tell. I can't relate the amount of grief I got from the nuns for confusing colors...

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Color_blindness

Also, I have a mild form of synaesthesia which actually aids my improvisation and composing... .

http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Synaesthesia

However - these traits of perception vary from individual to individual. Perhaps you can develop tunings based solely on your perception - but it will probably bring a world of hurt to assume that your perception is identical to the perception of the next individual. This is probably the reason things like those graphs are based on _average_ perceptions.

And actually when you think about it - this is a good thing because it means there is a world of variety to share.

Chris

To be honest I do not hear a difference between the two examples

>
> Could very well be...which is partly why I wish people would simply
> respond to questions like "does one of the examples above sound much more
> consonant than the other...yes or no?"
> .....instead of delving into somewhat irrelevant questions like "so is one
> PHI and one JI?" (answer: both are the same PHI scale except one is very
> slightly detuned) and "how well does Mike know JI?"
>
> -Michael
>
>
>

--Probably the best definition of a o-limit JI scale is a scadle
--where any note can be connected to at least one other note by
--an o-limit consonance. -Carl
   Ah, ok...this explains the largest chunk of what I've been missing and also explains what all those "mysterious" connections in "tonality diamonds" are about showing...if I have it right.

---Which JI scales have you been looking at?
   JI diatonic (5-limit) and scales posted here such as Marcel's recent ones.  I just never looked for the "any note can be connected to at least one other note by

an o-limit consonance" restriction.

--Interestingly, that turns out not to be the case. Chords
---like 12:14:18:21 are not o- or utonalities. Partch missed
--them. These are called ASS chords. Google for
---"Anomalous Saturated Suspension". -Carl

   Pretty interesting, I'm going to look into those...that's one JI trick I admit I have never heard of or tried in any form.  Admittedly, I got stuck on the idea that JI was all about u-tonal and o-tonal optimizations between as many different combinations of intervals as possible.
  Heck...maybe it's about time a jump back into JI and try to see if I can make some good A.S.S. chord combinations (that don't sound like ass). :-D

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma
<carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 12:49 AM

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

>

> Ugh...

> If I have it right

> A) Just Intonation is any tuning where frequencies are related

> by ratios of whole numbers

That's a good definition.

> B) 7-limit means having a highest prime factor of 7

Odd factor, usually. See also:

http://lumma. org/music/ theory/TuningFAQ .txt

and do a Ctrl-F for "9-limit" to find the Q&A on limits.

> C) A tetrad is, simply, a 4 note chord

Yes.

> So what, exactly, makes something like 9/8/7/5 (or my many

> other example chords) illegal?

It contains a factor of 9, making it a 9-limit chord.

> --1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4

> --1/1 7/6 7/5 7/4

> Apparently both of these chord are simple harmonic series:

> the first perfectly u-tonally related (fractions can be

> converted to x/4)....

O-tonally related, but yes, it is also written 4:5:6:7.

>and the other perfectly o-tonally related (7/x).

U-tonally. Yes, 7/x.

>But...the funny thing is most JI scales I have seen do not have

>every single note in them perfectly o-tonally or u-tonally

>related.

Which JI scales have you been looking at?

>So, Carl, what's the restriction in JI that I am missing here?

There are different ways to define JI, and I don't have a

monopoly on that, but typically if someone asks for a list

of 7-limit tetrads, they're looking for the answer I

subsequently gave.

Probably the best definition of a o-limit JI scale is a scale

where any note can be connected to at least one other note by

an o-limit consonance. The classical 5-limit diatonic scale

meets this criterion:

5/3---5/4--15/ 8

/ \ / \ / \

/ \ / \ / \

4/3---1/1--- 3/2---9/8

In fact, as you can see from this diagram (if you view this

in a monospaced font), every note is connected to at least

two others via a consonant interval (5/4, 6/5, or 3/2).

>Or is that perfect u-tonality/o- tonality itself the restriction?

Interestingly, that turns out not to be the case. Chords

like 12:14:18:21 are not o- or utonalities. Partch missed

them. These are called ASS chords. Google for

"Anomalous Saturated Suspension".

-Carl

    I hear you, Chris.  Shoot...you might be right, maybe a do have an oddly sharp sense of perception for tonal color after all: to me it seems about as clear as the difference between 5-limit JI diatonic vs. 12TET or 12TET vs. Lucy Tuning.  Heck, maybe my g/f and the other friend I blind-tested it on (only naming the examples "#1" and "#2" without saying which is which) also have an oddly sharp sense of tonal color.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Has anyone else tried the examples

http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav
   AND
http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav

   I'd really appreciate it if others let me know if they hear any difference between the two.

   Listen to them one after the other...again they both play exactly the same melody and notes/frequencies played are within a few cents of each other (between the 2 examples). 

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: Chris
Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 9:20 AM

To be honest I do not hear a difference between the two examples

Could very well be...which is partly why I wish people would simply respond to questions like "does one of the examples above sound much more consonant than the other...yes or no?"

.....instead of delving into somewhat irrelevant questions like "so is one PHI and one JI?" (answer: both are the same PHI scale except one is very slightly detuned) and "how well does Mike know JI?"

-Michael

or I have an oddly bad sense.

I aced music theory but just got by in ear training.

But who can really tell how the next person hears? All one can do is test
lots of people and draw some generalizations out of that.
Even the research into the basilar membrane is a generality - to a degree
every person is an exception...

Chris

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM, <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> I hear you, Chris. Shoot...you might be right, maybe a do have an
> oddly sharp sense of perception for tonal color after all: to me it seems
> about as clear as the difference between 5-limit JI diatonic vs. 12TET or
> 12TET vs. Lucy Tuning. Heck, maybe my g/f and the other friend I
> blind-tested it on (only naming the examples "#1" and "#2" without saying
> which is which) also have an oddly sharp sense of tonal color.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Has anyone else tried the examples
>
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav
> AND
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav
>
> I'd really appreciate it if others let me know if they hear any
> difference between the two.
>
> Listen to them one after the other...again they both play exactly the
> same melody and notes/frequencies played are within a few cents of each
> other (between the 2 examples).
>
> -Michael
>
> --- On *Sun, 4/12/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 9:20 AM
>
>
> To be honest I do not hear a difference between the two examples
>
>
>>
>> Could very well be...which is partly why I wish people would simply
>> respond to questions like "does one of the examples above sound much more
>> consonant than the other...yes or no?"
>> .....instead of delving into somewhat irrelevant questions like "so is one
>> PHI and one JI?" (answer: both are the same PHI scale except one is very
>> slightly detuned) and "how well does Mike know JI?"
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--I gave of harmonic interval, melodic interval, and unison are not
--my definitions. They are absolutely standard in normal,
--regular music theory.  -Carl
    I only took 1000 and 2000 level courses.  But I had never heard of the terms melodic vs. harmonic intervals...only the melodic vs. harmonic minor scales and monophonic vs. polyphonic music/instruments.   I realize that, for example C5 and C6 is counted as "in unison" and did know unison could be used that way...but that's not how I tested it (I "only" played "C5").  If I had used it that way I would have said "2 notes" not "one note"...think about it.
   Regardless...I get what you mean now by harmonic vs. melodic interval.  I'm not on this list to get a grade in memorizing musical vocabulary, though, I'm here to learn things to help me make better scales (regardless of if I know the perfect formal terminology or not).  Who knows some academic somewhere could call a+b/a = a/b as the "concordant divide" and you could say "Mike doesn't know jack about PHI scales b/c he doesn't use the term concordant divide"...and, unless the term concordant divide hinted at something special about the relationship a+b/a = a/b that I could use to make better scales, I honestly wouldn't care that I didn't know that term.

--I'm still not getting it. A unison involves two notes,
--not one. Are you talking about two notes or one? -Carl
   I mean one note and only one note no intervals. IE playing one key on the keyboard and NOTHING else.

--Sounds like a pitch color effect. Either that, or priming
--from consonance effects (if you're listening to other notes
--before the
test note). -Carl

   I doubt it is priming.  I have done these tests 30+ seconds after hearing any other tones whatsoever.  So it's probably pitch/color.

> Ok, let me restate that. Sethares curve is formed to optimize

> the LOWEST AVERAGE DISSONANCE for a scale.

--Wrong.
   Then it is built to optimize what exactly?  I've actually written programs using his formula...I have a tricky time believing this is wrong.  There is even an accumulator variable in his code that accumulates the dissonances of each possible dyad.   Everything seems to shout "finding the average".

--I think you're maybe getting at minimizing the maximum
--dissonance, which is generally called minimax optimization,
--and is a real workhorse in the 'regular mapping paradigm'
--developed on this list.

   Right, it is "minimizing the maximum dissonance".  But I haven't heard of regular mapping paradigm for this, only "1/4 comma meantone" as a mini-max scale system.

>Basically; my theory is it tricks the mind into thinking there's

>more consonance than there is mathematically, thus helping form

>a "different kind of periodicity" .

--Here's a great example of pseudoscientific bulls___. Read it
--a few more times and maybe you'll get better at recognizing it. -Carl
   I don't care if you think it's BS, I refuse to argue with my hearing/ears.  Mathematical consonance does not equal musical consonance.  We saw that with the huge example we did on this list about major vs. minor triad consonance.  There's nothing BS about the idea...that the mathematical definition of harmonic entropy has cracks in it and there's an wide open possibility for many things to help patch those cracks.  My point: why openly count out tonal color as a possible element to the solution?

--When talking about chords, almost always odd limit is
--intended.
Ah, ok, makes sense: I was following "prime limit", my mistake.

--The fact that you obviously can't complete this task makes
--you utterly unqualified to make the kind of sweeping statements
--about
"JI" that you've been making right and left (or do I
--need to dig some up and quote them for you?). Will there ever
--be a day when you post a humble retraction of them?
  
Sure, I admit that, although I understand that JI involves
A) whole numbered ratios
B) prime limit as a rating intonation within scales
C) involving o-tonal and u-tonal relationships (and trying to optimize them)...and what those relationships mean in terms of the harmonic series and periodicity
D) tetrads are 4-note chords
...that you managed to catch me on the fact that, although I did know all of the above, I did not know the somewhat anal-retentive facts that when you said limit you meant ODD limit and not prime limit (using odd-limit to rank consonance of chords) and that when you said limit you meant "connecting to at least 2 (magic number) other notes in the scale on o-limit related intervals".

   Also note, NONE of my statements of JI MENTIONED EITHER ODD LIMIT OR THE CONNECTING CLAUSE...THEY RELATED TO JI CONSONANCE AS IT REFERS TO SETHARES' CONSONANCE CURVE and periodicity.  So you caught me off guard by
asking a question that involved defining parts of JI more specifically than needed to explain Sethares' mathematical consonance theory.  Heck, even in all of Sethares' online pages, I saw nothing about the things I got wrong in your question.

  So fine, you win, I managed to not know 2 parts of JI irrelevant to the arguments I stated about JI.  And, your "tetrad" example still does not, for example, mean that the triad G-B-D automatically sounds pure in JI diatonic (which it doesn't)...or that any of the other problems with JI diatonic that I can hear by ear or see in Sethares' dissonance curves all of a sudden become invalid.  You are talking about points important to finding dissonance between dyads in JI chords...which is NEVER a point I argued with you about...my point has always revolved around entire scales...not "how to make a JI chord sound purest" or anything like that.

--I don't get it. Do you want consonance
or not? If you
--want have a scale with a uniform level of consonance, it
--must either avoid consonant intervals entirely, or it must
--be consonant when played as one big chord. 
--That's what you started with, and the only way to do it is either
--with a harmonic series segment, or with modified timbres,
--or with fewer than 7 notes.  -Carl
  Wow...that's a lot of limitations to follow if I want to make a 7-note-per-octave chord.   
  Which is why I'm saying (as I have the whole time) "pure 'limit' JI is just that: too limiting to allow this".

   I want something close enough to "perfectly consonant" to be satisfactory to the human ear for as many combinations of intervals as possible.  And I CERTAINLY meant a lot more than 4 notes per 2/1 octave (maybe this is why we are on different wavelengths vs. when you gave your JI-tetrad example)!
   And, even
while making chords from a straight harmonic series (PERFECTLY o-tonal-related fractions)...I have not managed to get something significantly clearer to my ears than what I get with my PHI scale. 

   To put it as a challenge, try to make a 7-limit JI chord that fits 7 notes within an octave?  Having trouble, aren't you? 
     That's why I'm saying...that irrational scales can compensate purity some intervals for others and "minimax optimize" in ways there's no way in hell JI can due to the way it insists on either "perfect" and "imperfect" intervals and virtually nothing in-between: actually that's a fundamental issue with low-number-ratio-based tuning and the "odd limit consonance" system you seem so attached to. 
    Seriously...your example to prove me wrong, so far as I can tell, actually indirectly proved me right: your tetrads limit you to 4-notes-per-octave...nothing
near the size of chords I'm trying to create per 2/1 octave (7+ note chords).  BTW, thinking about it...even 12TET can make several tetrads (major 7, major sus4 7, minor 7, dim 7...) that are passable to most people as fairly consonant.  So, to put it bluntly, I'm looking FAR past the idea of tetrads...though if you can magically combine those 2 tetrads into a "7 odd limit" 7 note chord, be my guess.  However, I'm strongly leaning toward the idea that, with the limits you gave yourself, that task will become impossible, but feel free to prove me wrong.

> So you are saying, the first 6 harmonics have to match

> (ALA aligning timbre with tuning)?

> If so I get what you are saying...
--That's not what I was saying. There are difference tones
--between the harmonics, not just the fundamentals.
   Yes, I meant including the harmonics...that's what I meant by aligning timbre with tuning: the harmonics are the timbre.  And no...the harmonics do not match the PHI relationship.  However, they do point to (and are recognized by the brain as) the root tone (of course, that's the nature of the harmonic series)...and the root tone does follow the a/b = a+b/a relationship and each harmonic also has that relationship to the same harmonic of any other root tone.  So, no, I'm not using PHI-timbre and gaining "a/b = a+b/a symmetry of timbre", but I am gaining that symmetry in root tones and the harmonic of any tone vs. the same number harmonic of any other tone.

-Michael

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 3:54 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, djtrancendance@ ... wrote:

> --Above, are you talking about a harmonic unison, a melodic

> --unison, or just about single pitches? -CARL

> I believe, according to what the words sound like, closer to

> single pitches as there is no concept of lending "toward

> monophonic melody" in that part of my theory.

It may be worth mentioning that the definitions I gave of

harmonic interval, melodic interval, and unison are not

my definitions. They are absolutely standard in normal,

regular music theory. They're taught in the first week of

every 100-level music theory class. My high school music

theory class, too. And most instrument pedagogy books

(e.g. "John Thompson's 2nd book of clarinet").

> Could be...one thing I can tell you is that, to my mind,

> they seem quite obvious, for whatever reason, when playing a

> note in unison.

I'm still not getting it. A unison involves two notes,

not one. Are you talking about two notes or one?

> --Almost all music takes place in this range. If you're really

> --talking about pitch color why are you going into all this

> --business about consonance? -CARL

> Simple...I hear certain tones that sound either BRIGHTER or

> DARKER in tone color by themselves. And I've found...if I take

> a bunch of tones that sound bright in unison and put them

> together...the resulting tone is ALSO brighter.

Sounds like a pitch color effect. Either that, or priming

from consonance effects (if you're listening to other notes

before the test note).

>Basically; my theory is it tricks the mind into thinking there's

>more consonance than there is mathematically, thus helping form

>a "different kind of periodicity" .

Here's a great example of pseudoscientific bulls___. Read it

a few more times and maybe you'll get better at recognizing it.

> Ok, let me restate that. Sethares curve is formed to optimize

> the LOWEST AVERAGE DISSONANCE for a scale.

Wrong.

> Meanwhile I am thinking about optimizing the LOWEST MAXIMUM

> DISSONANCE between any two intervals in the scale.

I think you're maybe getting at minimizing the maximum

dissonance, which is generally called minimax optimization,

and is a real workhorse in the 'regular mapping paradigm'

developed on this list.

> I don't think what I'm saying is that cryptic... I wrote about

> it to (William) Sethares and he apparently understood it the

> first time around...though I'll admit it's a tricky concept

> that goes pretty deep into his theories.

Again, if you can share something specific here, we can

discuss it. At the moment I think he either misunderstood

you, or you didn't say to him what you just said to me.

> --OK then, please list all 7-limit tetrads whose pitches

> ---lie between 1/1 and 2/1. You may omit inversions.

> Here are at least a few:

>

> 6/5/4/3

> --------

> 7/6/5/4

> --------

> 8/6/5/4

> 8/7/5/4

> --------

> 9/8/7/6

> 9/7/6/5

> 9/8/6/5

> 9/8/7/5

This last group are 9-limit chords.

> (this could take ages...but keep going up without using any

> number with a prime factor over 7 to get the rest)

When talking about chords, almost always odd limit is

intended.

The list of chords I asked for is finite, and actually

rather short.

The fact that you obviously can't complete this task makes

you utterly unqualified to make the kind of sweeping statements

about "JI" that you've been making right and left (or do I

need to dig some up and quote them for you?). Will there ever

be a day when you post a humble retraction of them?

> --One easy way to do it is to pick an equal

> --temperament with poor consonances, such as 11-ET, since

> --equal temperaments have the same intervals in every mode.

> But then you viciously violate Plomp&L's theory of consonance

>(with regard to overtones mixing together in the area of maximum

>harmonic entropy).

I don't get it. Do you want consonance or not? If you

want have a scale with a uniform level of consonance, it

must either avoid consonant intervals entirely, or it must

be consonant when played as one big chord. That's what

you started with, and the only way to do it is either

with a harmonic series segment, or with modified timbres,

or with fewer than 7 notes.

> --That's a real phenomenon, but once again, difference tones

> --are not very significant in musical consonance (though they do

> --have some bearing).

> You'd think they'd have to...as the harmonic series itself

> is a hugely obvious example of constant (and, obviously,

> constant is a very simple type of proportionality) difference

> tones.

The harmonic series is consonant for a different reason.

> --300-100 = 200; 900-300 = 600 -CARL

> Ugh...my bad...I meant something like 100 300 500. Even in

> your example, though, the possible difference tones all retain

> a greatest common multiple of 100hz.

The greatest common _divisor_ of 200 and 600 is 200.

The _least_ common multiple is 600.

I don't know what a greatest common multiple is.

> But, anyhow, my point is all combinations of difference tone

> in the PHI tuning are related by PHI times another difference

> tone...so the beating

You keep saying that, but you haven't shown it. I asked you

how many of the chords in your scale have this property, and

you haven't responded.

> --But, when talking difference tones, one does have to compute

> --the difference tones between all partials (or at least, the

> --first 6 partials), so this kind of comparison is fairly

> --limited, even if you'd gotten it right.

>

> So you are saying, the first 6 harmonics have to match

> (ALA aligning timbre with tuning)?

> If so I get what you are saying...

That's not what I was saying. There are difference tones

between the harmonics, not just the fundamentals.

-Carl

---All one can do is
test lots of people ---and draw some generalizations out of that. -Chris

Chris,
   Hehe...exactly, which is why I wish I could get more honest people to try this "listening test" and not just yourself and a few friends I know.  Again, though, thank you very much for making the effort to not whine or go off topic...and just take the time to sit down and do the comparison by ear...that's really almost all I can ask regardless of what anyones "ear training level" is. :-)
     And I realize, a survey size of 5 isn't exactly a decent sampling.  It's just, hey, this is weird stuff and finding people to "test it" with isn't exactly easy.

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 4:24 PM

or I have an oddly bad sense.

I aced music theory but just got by in ear training.

But who can really tell how the next person hears? All one can do is test lots of people and draw some generalizations out of that.

Even the research into the basilar membrane is a generality - to a degree every person is an exception...

Chris

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM, <djtrancendance@ yahoo.com> wrote:

I hear you, Chris. Shoot...you might be right, maybe a do have an oddly sharp sense of perception for tonal color after all: to me it seems about as clear as the difference between 5-limit JI diatonic vs. 12TET or 12TET vs. Lucy Tuning. Heck, maybe my g/f and the other friend I blind-tested it on (only naming the examples "#1" and "#2" without saying which is which) also have an oddly sharp sense of tonal color.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------
Has anyone else tried the examples

http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ rationalPHI. wav

AND
http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ 2basilarPHI. wav

I'd really appreciate it if others let me know if they hear any difference between the
two.

Listen to them one after the other...again they both play exactly the same melody and notes/frequencies played are within a few cents of each other (between the 2 examples).

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@ gmail.com> wrote:

From: Chris
Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@ gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com

Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 9:20 AM

To be honest I do not hear a difference between the two examples

Could very well be...which is partly why I wish people would simply respond to questions like "does one of the examples above sound much more consonant than the other...yes or no?"

.....instead of delving into somewhat irrelevant questions like "so is one PHI and one JI?" (answer: both are the same PHI scale except one is very slightly detuned) and "how well does Mike know JI?"

-Michael

The email below - of which I reproduce the first and last paragraphs only -
originally contained an astonishing 1538 words.
This is downright disrespectful for the list members.

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
djtrancendance@...
Sent: 13 April 2009 01:09
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael

--I gave of harmonic interval, melodic interval, and unison are not
--my definitions. They are absolutely standard in normal,
--regular music theory. -Carl
I only took 1000 and 2000 level courses. But I had never heard ...

That's not what I was saying. There are difference tones
between the harmonics, not just the fundamentals.

-

<mailto:tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=>
Recent Activity

*

3
New
</tuning/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYTdnZm81BF9TAzk3M
zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzcwNjA1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTg5Nzc1MwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzd
GltZQMxMjM5NTgxMzUz> Members
*

1
New
</tuning/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNGhrMWxsBF9TAzk3MzU
5NzE0BGdycElkAzcwNjA1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTg5Nzc1MwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2ZmlsZXMEc3R
pbWUDMTIzOTU4MTM1Mw--> Files

Visit
</tuning;_ylc=X3oDMTJjbmFnaHZoBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0B
GdycElkAzcwNjA1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTg5Nzc1MwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEyM
zk1ODEzNTM-> Your Group
Yahoo! Groups

Mom
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hsapu3n/M=493064.12662709.13497510.8674578/D=
grplch/S=1705897753:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1239588553/L=/B=Z_5TCEPDhEU-/J=1239581353
383146/K=ZQSnDrc1XlUegBUwG2zteA/A=5689698/R=0/SIG=11eaa5dke/*http://groups.y
ahoo.com/group/mompowergroup/> Power

Kids, family & home

Join the discussion

Y! Groups blog

The
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hnnm6cp/M=493064.12016258.12582637.8674578/D=
grplch/S=1705897753:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1239588553/L=/B=aP5TCEPDhEU-/J=1239581353
383146/K=ZQSnDrc1XlUegBUwG2zteA/A=5191953/R=0/SIG=112mhte3e/*http://www.ygro
upsblog.com/blog/> place to go

to stay informed

on Groups news!

Yahoo! Groups

Auto
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=14hc3cdrs/M=493064.12717544.13455789.8674578/D=
grplch/S=1705897753:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1239588553/L=/B=af5TCEPDhEU-/J=1239581353
383146/K=ZQSnDrc1XlUegBUwG2zteA/A=5658247/R=0/SIG=11ptgj47g/*http://advision
.webevents.yahoo.com/autoenthusiastzone/> Enthusiast Zone

Passionate about cars?

Check out the Auto Enthusiast Zone.

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=70605/grpspId=1705897753/msgId=8
2781/stime=1239581353/nc1=5689698/nc2=5191953/nc3=5658247>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:

>I realize that, for example C5 and C6 is counted as "in unison"

No, that's an octave. C5 and C5 is a unison.

>I'm not on this list to get a grade in memorizing musical
>vocabulary,

Why are you on this list? Because we can arrange to get
you off it it.

>I'm here to learn things to help me make better scales

Great. Since the list is a literary medium, you'll need to
be literate to accomplish this goal. You'll have to learn
standard terminology. If you don't want to learn the
terminology you need for your readers to understand you,
you should definitely unsubscribe. Don't even bother to
reply, just hit the unsubscribe button right now. Everyone
will be happier.

If you _are_ interested, here's how you might have replied:
"Gee, thanks Carl. I never knew that. I'll definitely
remember those definitions in the future. Sorry for any
confusion."

Notice the difference?

>>> Ok, let me restate that. Sethares curve is formed to optimize
>>> the LOWEST AVERAGE DISSONANCE for a scale.
>>
>>Wrong.
>
>Then it is built to optimize what exactly?

Sethares' trademark dissonance curves plot roughness against
interval size, per timbre you're interested in. That's all.
They have nothing to do with scales and they don't optimize
anything.

> ...that you managed to catch me on the fact that, although
>I did know all of the above, I did not know the somewhat
>anal-retentive facts that when you said limit you meant ODD
>limit and not prime limit

Right, as if I was asking for an infinite list, or as if you
could have produced the correct odd limit list anyway. The
bottom line is, you've spent the first third of 2009 making
proclamations about 'JI vs. my theories' and you don't know
what JI is.

>my point has always revolved around entire scales...

Exactly what procedure do you suggest for evaluating entire
scales?

>    I want something close enough to "perfectly consonant" to
> be satisfactory to the human ear for as many combinations of
> intervals as possible.

Good idea. That's what everyone else is trying to do too.

> And, even while making chords from a straight harmonic series
> (PERFECTLY o-tonal-related fractions)...I have not managed to
> get something significantly clearer to my ears than what I get
> with my PHI scale. 

Exactly which chord in your phi scale is about as clear
as exactly which chord from the harmonic series? Remember
the format I suggested for posting observations.... I just
can't stress that enough.

>     Seriously...your example to prove me wrong, so far as I
> can tell, actually indirectly proved me right: your tetrads
> limit you to 4-notes-per-octave...

Uh, sure. Actually, it was just a simple quiz I knew you
couldn't answer. Just pulled it out of the air.

-Carl

Come on Claudio.
I oppose all forms of censorship, as I expect do the majority of the tunaniks.
If the message is too long for your taste, don't read it.
Despite my spam filters on my server, I get more than a thousands spams a week.
I just dump them; you could do the same for "long messages", which would avoid everyone's content being censored for some posters' long-windedness, and your laziness, impatience or whatever it is that motivates your "disrespectful" comment.
Let the posters post whatever they wish.

On 13 Apr 2009, at 01:27, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:

>
>
>
> The email below - of which I reproduce the first and last paragraphs > only - originally contained an astonishing 1538 words.
> This is downright disrespectful for the list members.
>
> Claudio
>
> From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On > Behalf Of djtrancendance@...
> Sent: 13 April 2009 01:09
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
>
> --I gave of harmonic interval, melodic interval, and unison are not
> --my definitions. They are absolutely standard in normal,
> --regular music theory. -Carl
> I only took 1000 and 2000 level courses. But I had never > heard ...
>
> That's not what I was saying. There are difference tones
> between the harmonics, not just the fundamentals.
>
> -
>
>
>
>
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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:
>
> Come on Claudio.
> I oppose all forms of censorship, as I expect do the majority of the
> tunaniks.
> If the message is too long for your taste, don't read it.

A lot of the length comes from the fact that Michael
doesn't trim his replies (standard mailing list etiquette).

-Carl

Sorry to reply to a reply, but of course I have filters.

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM, <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> >>
>> I hear you, Chris. Shoot...you might be right, maybe a do have an
>> oddly sharp sense of perception for tonal color after all: to me it seems
>> about as clear as the difference between 5-limit JI diatonic vs. 12TET or
>> 12TET vs. Lucy Tuning. Heck, maybe my g/f and the other friend I
>> blind-tested it on (only naming the examples "#1" and "#2" without saying
>> which is which) also have an oddly sharp sense of tonal color.

That's a poor blind test (only single blind) if you know which is which, and they always come in the same order.

>> Has anyone else tried the examples
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav
>> AND
>> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav
>>
>> I'd really appreciate it if others let me know if they hear any
>> difference between the two.

That's trolling for a positive response.

Also, why have you started posting uncompressed PCM files? These are over 5MB together. Maybe you've decides MPEG compression introduces artifacts but there are lossless formats out there.

>> --- On *Sun, 4/12/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>* wrote:

>> To be honest I do not hear a difference between the two examples
>>
>>> Could very well be...which is partly why I wish people would simply
>>> respond to questions like "does one of the examples above sound much more
>>> consonant than the other...yes or no?"

Was that the question you asked in the first place, then?

Anyway, I set up a blind trial. I listened to each in turn, in a random order, 10 times, and recorded my preferences. The results were:

{'2basilarPHI.wav': 6, 'rationalPHI.wav': 4}

That was with headphones. (Weile WL-915MV) Originally I listened through speakers (compact Edifiers) which have a lot of distortion. One interesting result is that both files sound a lot smoother through the headphones. But the first time I listened I definitely preferred the basilar file. It was the second one I heard and I knew which was which. That makes some sense because difference tones get exaggerated by distortion. So I ran the trial again using those speakers. The results:

{'2basilarPHI.wav': 5, 'rationalPHI.wav': 5}

The conclusion: I can't tell the difference, even with a test rigged to exaggerate the difference, but I sometimes think I can.

Here's the Python code for the test if you want to play along at home:

import os, random

files = ["rationalPHI.wav", "2basilarPHI.wav"]
stats = {}
for file in files:
stats[file] = 0
for i in range(int(raw_input("How many trials?"))):
random.shuffle(files)
print "Sample 1"
os.system("mplayer %s > /dev/null" % files[0])
print "Sample 2"
os.system("mplayer %s > /dev/null" % files[1])
pref = int(raw_input("Which was smoother?"))
stats[files[pref-1]] += 1
print stats

Graham

--A lot of the length comes from the fact that Michael
---doesn't trim his replies (standard mailing list etiquette).
     Trim my replies...very vaguely stated...what exactly are you talking about, Carl?

     Also, Carl, I can swear, when we're having these heated debates, we are usually fairly even on word count.  Except, of course, when you make one of your "I need more detail" type of questions to me in which case, well, you get what you ask for. :-D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Others please, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me like someone here is often a lot more into following formalities, policing others, and forcing his opinions upon others...then actually helping others work on tuning.

   I may be a "non-JI freak" and at the same time have not known, say, that odd limit takes "precedence" over prime limit...but at least I am not going around telling people the equivalent of "this isn't good enough for me and therefore this person deserves much less 'bandwidth' on the list".

    And Carl, don't get me wrong I've learned a lot from you and respect your abilities in tuning a lot...but that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot myself in the foot or tell myself to shut up when it simply turns out that I don't agree with you or accept weird and obscure comments from you about my "smoking pot" just because I don't agree with you or follow a certain academic tuning formality.

  And yes, I have gone on a bit, but I think this needs to be said.

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to post/speak!!!!
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 7:04 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups. com, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

>

> Come on Claudio.

> I oppose all forms of censorship, as I expect do the majority of the

> tunaniks.

> If the message is too long for your taste, don't read it.

A lot of the length comes from the fact that Michael

doesn't trim his replies (standard mailing list etiquette).

-Carl

---That's trolling for a positive response.
    How would it be?  I certainly didn't say which was which or say which was the one I am trying to prove.  Also, for my tests...I don't "usually" put my version as #1 or my version as #2 when I played it to my friends...I alternate randomly.
   I certainly didn't say, for example
#1) my version
#2) other version
****************************************************************************
  Anyhow, thank you for the result and the "double blind" testing code (whereas, you are right: my test was single blind and that is, of course, something that can be improved in the testing method).
  Graham, any ideas how to do a double blind test on the forum (IE without a program)?

BTW, you're right, I  should/will start using mp3 again...I've simply been lazy about encoding, honestly.

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

From: Graham Breed <gbreed@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 5:44 PM

Sorry to reply to a reply, but of course I have filters.

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM, <djtrancendance@ yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>

>> I hear you, Chris. Shoot...you might be right, maybe a do have an

>> oddly sharp sense of perception for tonal color after all: to me it seems

>> about as clear as the difference between 5-limit JI diatonic vs. 12TET or

>> 12TET vs. Lucy Tuning. Heck, maybe my g/f and the other friend I

>> blind-tested it on (only naming the examples "#1" and "#2" without saying

>> which is which) also have an oddly sharp sense of tonal color.

That's a poor blind test (only single blind) if you know

which is which, and they always come in the same order.

>> Has anyone else tried the examples

>>

>> http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ rationalPHI. wav

>> AND

>> http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ 2basilarPHI. wav

>>

>> I'd really appreciate it if others let me know if they hear any

>> difference between the two.

That's trolling for a positive response.

Also, why have you started posting uncompressed PCM files?

These are over 5MB together. Maybe you've decides MPEG

compression introduces artifacts but there are lossless

formats out there.

>> --- On *Sun, 4/12/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@ gmail.com>* wrote:

>> To be honest I do not hear a difference between the two examples

>>

>>> Could very well be...which is partly why I wish people would simply

>>> respond to questions like "does one of the examples above sound much more

>>> consonant than the other...yes or no?"

Was that the question you asked in the first place, then?

Anyway, I set up a blind trial. I listened to each in turn,

in a random order, 10 times, and recorded my preferences.

The results were:

{'2basilarPHI. wav': 6, 'rationalPHI. wav': 4}

That was with headphones. (Weile WL-915MV) Originally I

listened through speakers (compact Edifiers) which have a

lot of distortion. One interesting result is that both

files sound a lot smoother through the headphones. But the

first time I listened I definitely preferred the basilar

file. It was the second one I heard and I knew which was

which. That makes some sense because difference tones get

exaggerated by distortion. So I ran the trial again using

those speakers. The results:

{'2basilarPHI. wav': 5, 'rationalPHI. wav': 5}

The conclusion: I can't tell the difference, even with a

test rigged to exaggerate the difference, but I sometimes

think I can.

Here's the Python code for the test if you want to play

along at home:

import os, random

files = ["rationalPHI. wav", "2basilarPHI. wav"]

stats = {}

for file in files:

stats[file] = 0

for i in range(int(raw_ input("How many trials?"))):

random.shuffle( files)

print "Sample 1"

os.system("mplayer %s > /dev/null" % files[0])

print "Sample 2"

os.system("mplayer %s > /dev/null" % files[1])

pref = int(raw_input( "Which was smoother?"))

stats[files[ pref-1]] += 1

print stats

Graham

I have AP1, and I just took a blind test in which I tried to identify
which example was which. The two were thrown into iTunes and shuffled
at random.

Here are my results for the first set of 11:
Correctly identified "rational" example: 2
Correctly identified "basilar" example: 4
Misidentified basilar as rational: 1
Misidentified rational as basilar: 4

After those 11, I suddenly noticed that the "rational" example has a
much sharper opening note in the bass and that the "basilar" one has
it a little flatter; the latter makes the overall tonic closer to what
sounds like a "B" to my ears. I hadn't noticed that previously. Here
are the results after this epiphany (I did 10 more):

Correctly identified "rational" example: 4
Correctly identified "basilar" example: 6
I didn't misidentify any.

I didn't really have any preference before I noticed that difference.
Now that I can't stop noticing it, I have to admit that I like the
basilar one better. I do prefer the familiar and synesthetically
developed "B" tonic tp the strange and foreign tonic key of the first
one. I can't tell if that's because the notes in the "right hand" are
a bit more "out of tune" sounding relative to the bass notes, or if
it's because of the actual tonic change.

Nonetheless, I wouldn't throw a word like "consonance" around to
describe the difference between the two. And I certainly wouldn't
assume it has anything to do with the basilar membrane. In fact, if
you were to probe my brain and measure when I derive the most pleasure
from hearing a certain note, the results would likely sync up with the
canonical A-440 12-tet pitch set, and have nothing to do with where
critical bands overlap. I'm not the best at psychoanalyzing myself,
but I'd assume this is due to psychological reasons and has no real
basis in psychoacoustics (except perhaps for how psychological reasons
affect audio perception).

Not to mention that when I view strange and unfamiliar stimuli as
unpleasant (or, in your words, perhaps "dissonant") another person
might view them as exotic or exciting (or, perhaps "more consonant").
It is largely a matter of psychological interpretation, in my opinion.

-Mike

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:07 AM, <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
> --Mike,
> --I think that indeed, as mentioned by others, you may have a highly
> developed relative pitch --or absolute pitch.
>    That I may indeed (I'm actually starting to believe this as it has been
> mentioned so much)...and thus it may matter more to my ears than other
> peoples.
>   However when I have shown people the two examples
>
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav
> (original tuning: with some "dark" colored tones)
>
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav  (with all dark
> colored tones slightly re-tuned to "bright" colored tones by altering each
> tone in the above scale by only a few cents!)
>
> ...the results so far have been overwhelming: even people who can't tell the
> color difference of tones in unison CAN feel a major difference when a large
> set of bright tones is applied to improve the consonance of chords.
> *************************************************************
> --but it will probably bring a world of hurt to assume that your perception
> is identical to the --perception of the next individual.
>
>     Could very well be...which is partly why I wish people would simply
> respond to questions like "does one of the examples above sound much more
> consonant than the other...yes or no?"
> .....instead of delving into somewhat irrelevant questions like "so is one
> PHI and one JI?" (answer: both are the same PHI scale except one is very
> slightly detuned) and "how well does Mike know JI?"
>
> -Michael
>
>
> --- On Fri, 4/10/09, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 3:32 PM
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
> I think that indeed, as mentioned by others, you may have a highly developed
> relative pitch or absolute pitch.
>
> Pitch class has an inherent affect on your perception of pitch but I find
> that unisons should sound equal compared to each other.
>
> That is to say C+C and D+D should sound identical - excepting for the fact
> one is higher in pitch.
>
> I think that your perception, your personal sense of hearing, may be
> coloring your analysis of what is happening.
>
> To give an example of this sort of thing:
>
> I happen to be red-green color deficient. So, in most states (not all mind
> you!) a green light does not look green. It is dirty white. It has no color
> whatsoever.
> Cross a state line and the filter comes from a different manufacturer - it
> could look green to me. However, only some 8% of males have this. BUt it is
> so hard to tell. I can't relate the amount of grief I got from the nuns for
> confusing colors...
>
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Color_blindness
>
>
> Also, I have a mild form of synaesthesia which actually aids my
> improvisation and composing... .
>
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Synaesthesia
>
> However - these traits of perception vary from individual to individual.
> Perhaps you can develop tunings based solely on your perception - but it
> will probably bring a world of hurt to assume that your perception is
> identical to the perception of the next individual. This is probably the
> reason things like those graphs are based on _average_ perceptions.
>
> And actually when you think about it - this is a good thing because it means
> there is a world of variety to share.
>
> Chris
>
>

djtrancendance@... wrote:

> Has anyone else tried the examples
> > http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/rationalPHI.wav
> AND
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/2basilarPHI.wav
> > I'd really appreciate it if others let me know if they hear any > difference between the two.
> > Listen to them one after the other...again they both play exactly the > same melody and notes/frequencies played are within a few cents of each > other (between the 2 examples). > > -Michael

There's a difference, certainly. Slightly different moods -- hard to characterize what the difference is though. It seems the rationalPHI example is -- for lack of a better word -- a bit "rougher" than the 2basilarPHI example.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> --A lot of the length comes from the fact that Michael
> ---doesn't trim his replies (standard mailing list etiquette).
>      Trim my replies...very vaguely stated...what exactly are
>you talking about, Carl?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trim+your+replies

-Carl

Dear Charles and others,

there are many lists like this one in the Internet.
This one is fully unregulated, many others are not.
I have not invented netiquette and good manners.
You surely know that it is considered disrespectful to reproduce in full
length posts to which one is replying: one should only show the paragraphs
one is responding to, and abridge the rest with ellipses, and try to be
succinct, which MOST of us are indeed.
To make matters worse, the offending behaviour comes from somebody who
writes MORE and MORE OFTEN on this list that all the other members put
together.

Kind regards,

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Charles Lucy
Sent: 13 April 2009 02:18
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to post/speak!!!!

Come on Claudio.

I oppose all forms of censorship, as I expect do the majority of the
tunaniks.
If the message is too long for your taste, don't read it.
Despite my spam filters on my server, I get more than a thousands spams a
week.
I just dump them; you could do the same for "long messages", which would
avoid everyone's content being censored for some posters' long-windedness,
and your laziness, impatience or whatever it is that motivates your
"disrespectful" comment.
Let the posters post whatever they wish.

On 13 Apr 2009, at 01:27, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:

The email below - of wh ich I reproduce the first and last paragraphs only -
originally contained an astonishing 1538 words.
This is downright disrespectful for the list members.

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
djtrancendance@...
Sen t: 13 April 2009 01:09
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael

--I gave of harmonic interval, melodic interval, and unison are not
--my definitions. They are absolutely standard in normal,
--regular music theory. -Carl
I only took 1000 and 2000 level courses. But I had never heard ...

That's not what I was saying. There are difference tones
between the harmonics, not just the fundamentals.

-

Charles Lucy
lucy@lucytune. <mailto:lucy@...> com

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabie <http://www.lullabies.co.uk> s.co.uk

--To make matters worse, the offending behaviour
comes from --somebody who writes MORE and MORE OFTEN on this list that all
the --other members put together.
   First of all, this is complete BS that I'm the only one doing this (or the indirect instigation that I'm starting such long comments out of nowhere rather than as a reply to what other people have asked me).
   At many times I write 1-2 messages a week; lately (within the last 2-3 weeks) I've been writing a ton, but so has Carl (in fact, 90-95% of what I've written have simple been responses to equally long writing/questions by Carl).  And, for the record, he STILL often complains that I don't write enough detail!
     Things like this puts me in a nasty situation where either
A) I reply and get harassed by people like yourself for writing too much OR
B) I don't reply or reply shortly and get harassed by people like yourself for "not listening and replying in a manner that shows enough length, examples, and detail to say I'm paying attention"

  ....so either way, I'm screwed...and if someone writes long questions, I typically choose to answer them with long detailed answers (IE I'd rather be accused of A) than B) ).

  If you don't like that, you can tell people like Carl to stop "nailing me to the wall" with long (esp. accusatory) questions...because in the absence of those I usually don't give long answers.
  
   For the record, I'd rather be seen as overly-aggressively-outspoken, than ignorant...and people like yourself force me to choose between the two.  So if want shorter messages, stop putting (or encouraging others to put me) in ridiculous "everyone loses" situations.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to post/speak!!!!
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 3:05 AM

Dear Charles and others,
 
there are many lists like this one in the
Internet.
This one is fully unregulated, many others are
not.
I have not invented netiquette and good
manners.
You surely know that it is considered disrespectful to
reproduce in full length posts to which one is replying: one should only show
the paragraphs one is responding to, and abridge the rest with ellipses,
and
try to be succinct, which MOST of us are
indeed.
To make matters worse, the offending behaviour
comes from somebody who writes MORE and MORE OFTEN on this list that all
the other members put together.
 
Kind regards,
 
Claudio
 
 

From: tuning@yahoogroups. com
[mailto:tuning@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Charles
Lucy
Sent: 13 April 2009 02:18
To:
tuning@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for
Michael - Freedom to post/speak!! !!

Come on Claudio.
I oppose all forms of censorship, as I expect do the majority of the
tunaniks.
If the message is too long for your taste, don't read it.
Despite my spam filters on my server, I get more than a thousands spams a
week.
I just dump them; you could do the same for "long messages", which would
avoid everyone's content being censored for some posters' long-windedness, and
your laziness, impatience or whatever it is that motivates your
"disrespectful"  comment.
Let the posters post whatever they wish.

On 13 Apr 2009, at 01:27, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:

The email below - of wh ich I reproduce the first and last
paragraphs only - originally contained an astonishing
1538 words.
This is downright disrespectful for the list
members.
 
Claudio

From: tuning@yahoogroups. com [mailto:tuning@ yahoogroups. com] On
Behalf Of djtrancendance@ yahoo.com
Sen t: 13 April 2009
01:09
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re:
[tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael

--I gave of harmonic interval, melodic interval, and unison are
not
--my definitions. They are absolutely standard in
normal,
--regular music theory.  -Carl
   
I only took 1000 and 2000 level courses.  But I had never
heard  ...

That's not what I was saying.
There are difference tones
between the harmonics, not just the
fundamentals.

-

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

Thank you for taking the time to run this test, Mike. :-)

--And I certainly wouldn't assume it has anything to do with the basilar --membrane. -Mike
  I agree it may very well not...but, rather, this was the only thing I could think of that could explain the phenomena (that the scale not aligned to rational fractions has done either equally as good or better than the rational ones in all tests so far).  Food for thought: if it has nothing to do with the BM, what do you think it might be (just personal preference alone, or something more universal)?  -Me/Michael

-Not to mention that when I view strange and unfamiliar stimuli as
-unpleasant (or, in your words, perhaps "dissonant") another person
-might view them as exotic or exciting (or, perhaps "more consonant").
-It is largely a matter of psychological interpretation, in my opinion. -Mike
   Right, and there's nothing I can do to see how much of that is playing in to the ratings on these...which is why I'm trying to test so many people to find a more balance "average subjective perception" of which is better.  And, agreed, a lot of it may very well not be psycho-acoustics.
-Me/Michael

-Michael

And...the google search results are vague.
   According to them, I already comply.  I've always only included relevant text in my "---" quotes: I certainly never copy your entire e-mails (parts I'm not replying to included), for example, and slap "---"'s in front of them!

  BTW, for searches like that, Google is hopelessly vague.
  Included in those search results you gave me were things like

 http://aspcacommunity.ning.com/group/helpinganimals/forum/topics/658300:Topic:360361
https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/educators/2007-November/016557.html
...none of them very specific or useful. 

The google results didn't teach me jack, what did was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

--http://lmggt... (link to "was that so hard" google auto-search)
(note: THIS format, as copied from wiki, and not the corny Google answers, taught me how to do the trimming performed above!)

  BTW, so that is your attitude, eh?  Give me a grossly incomplete answer (the first 100 results from your Google search were VERY vague) and then blame me for not making the effort to find it.  NO THANK YOU.

    Luckily I used the wiki link instead of your Google one...

-Michael
 

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma <carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to post/speak!!!!
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 9:57 PM

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

>

> --A lot of the length comes from the fact that Michael

> ---doesn't trim his replies (standard mailing list etiquette).

>      Trim my replies...very vaguely stated...what exactly are

>you talking about, Carl?

http://lmgtfy. com/?q=trim+ your+replies

-Carl

Indeed Michel, I find your posts very irritating.
But you have a point here:
I should not have sent that email
(or any email responding or referring to your posts).

Happy Easter everybody

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Michael Sheiman
Sent: 13 April 2009 14:18
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to post/speak!!!!

--To make matters worse, the offending behaviour comes from --somebody who
writes MORE and MORE OFTEN on this list that all the --other members put
together.
First of all, this is complete BS that I'm the only one doing this (or
the indirect instigation that I'm starting such long comments out of nowhere
rather than as a reply to what other people have asked me).
At many times I write 1-2 messages a week; lately (within the last 2-3
weeks) I've been writing a ton, but so has Carl (in fact, 90-95% of what
I've written have simple been responses to equally long writing/questions by
Carl). And, for the record, he STILL often complains that I don't write
enough detail!
Things like this puts me in a nasty situation where either
A) I reply and get harassed by people like yourself for writing too much OR
B) I don't reply or reply shortly and get harassed by people like yourself
for "not listening and replying in a manner that shows enough length,
examples, and detail to say I'm paying attention"

....so either way, I'm screwed...and if someone writes long questions, I
typically choose to answer them with long detailed answers (IE I'd rather be
accused of A) than B) ).

If you don't like that, you can tell people like Carl to stop "nailing me
to the wall" with long (esp. accusatory) questions...because in the absence
of those I usually don't give long answers.

For the record, I'd rather be seen as overly-aggressively-outspoken, than
ignorant...and people like yourself force me to choose between the two. So
if want shorter messages, stop putting (or encouraging others to put me) in
ridiculous "everyone loses" situations.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to post/speak!!!!
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 3:05 AM

Dear Charles and others,

there are many lists like this one in the Internet.
This one is fully unregulated, many others are not.
I have not invented netiquette and good manners.
You surely know that it is considered disrespectful to reproduce in full
length posts to which one is replying: one should only show the paragraphs
one is responding to, and abridge the rest with ellipses, and try to be
succinct, which MOST of us are indeed.
To make matters worse, the offending behaviour comes from somebody who
writes MORE and MORE OFTEN on this list that all the other members put
together.

Kind regards,

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups. com [mailto:tuning@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
Charles Lucy
Sent: 13 April 2009 02:18
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to post/speak!!
!!

Come on Claudio.

I oppose all forms of censorship, as I expect do the majority of the
tunaniks.
If the message is too long for your taste, don't read it.
Despite my spam filters on my server, I get more than a thousands spams a
week.
I just dump them; you could do the same for "long messages", which would
avoid everyone's content being censored for some posters' long-windedness,
and your laziness, impatience or whatever it is that motivates your
"disrespectful" comment.
Let the posters post whatever they wish.

On 13 Apr 2009, at 01:27, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:

The email below - of wh ich I reproduce the first and last paragraphs only -
originally contained an astonishing 1538 words.
This is downright disrespectful for the list members.

Claudio

_____

From: tuning@yahoogroups. com [mailto:tuning@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
djtrancendance@ yahoo.com
Sen t: 13 April 2009 01:09
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael

--I gave of harmonic interval, melodic interval, and unison are not
--my definitions. They are absolutely standard in normal,
--regular music theory. -Carl
I only took 1000 and 2000 level courses. But I had never heard ...

That's not what I was saying. There are difference tones
between the harmonics, not just the fundamentals.

-

Charles Lucy
lucy@lucytune. com

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

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

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabie s.co.uk <http://www.lullabies.co.uk>

--Indeed Michel, I find your posts very
irritating.
--But you have a point here:
--I should not have sent that email --(or any email responding or referring to your
posts).
    If you are choosing to give me no options or alternatives (to my either being stuck in the "doesn't listen/reply long enough" or "replies too much" bins) and yet keep whining with no aim of solution or alternatives then....
....fair enough, I'm disregarding your messages as well.  And if you don't like the fact that I refuse to "slap myself" for you or disrespect myself, tough.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...> wrote:

From: Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@...>
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to post/speak!!!!
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 9:17 AM

Indeed Michel, I find your posts very
irritating.
But you have a point here:
I should not have sent that email
(or any email responding or referring to your
posts).
 
Happy Easter everybody
 
Claudio
 
 
 
 

From: tuning@yahoogroups. com
[mailto:tuning@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Michael
Sheiman
Sent: 13 April 2009 14:18
To:
tuning@yahoogroups. com
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for
Michael - Freedom to post/speak!! !!

--To make matters worse, the offending behaviour
comes from --somebody who writes MORE and MORE OFTEN on this list
that all the --other members put together.
   First of all, this is complete BS
that I'm the only one doing this (or the indirect instigation that I'm
starting such long comments out of nowhere rather than as a reply to
what other people have asked me).
   At many times I write
1-2 messages a week; lately (within the last 2-3 weeks) I've been
writing a ton, but so has Carl (in fact, 90-95% of what I've written
have simple been responses to equally long writing/questions by
Carl).  And, for the record, he STILL often complains that I don't
write enough detail!
     Things like this puts
me in a nasty situation where either
A) I reply and get harassed by
people like yourself for writing too much OR
B) I don't reply or
reply shortly and get harassed by people like yourself for "not
listening and replying in a manner that shows enough length, examples,
and detail to say I'm paying attention"

  ....so either way,
I'm screwed...and if someone writes long questions, I typically choose
to answer them with long detailed answers (IE I'd rather be accused of
A) than B) ).

  If you don't like that, you can tell people
like Carl to stop "nailing me to the wall" with long (esp. accusatory)
questions... because in the absence of those I usually don't give
long answers.
  
   For the record, I'd
rather be seen as overly-aggressively -outspoken, than
ignorant...and people like yourself force me to choose between the
two.  So if want shorter messages, stop putting (or encouraging
others to put me) in ridiculous "everyone loses"
situations.

-Michael

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Claudio
Di Veroli <dvc@braybaroque. ie> wrote:

From:
Claudio Di Veroli <dvc@braybaroque. ie>
Subject: RE:
[tuning] Re: Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to
post/speak!! !!
To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
Date:
Monday, April 13, 2009, 3:05 AM

Dear Charles and
others,
 
there are many lists like this one in the
Internet.
This one is fully unregulated, many others
are not.
I have not invented netiquette and good
manners.
You surely know that it is considered
disrespectful to reproduce in full length posts to which one is
replying: one should only show the paragraphs one is responding to,
and abridge the rest with ellipses, and try to be
succinct, which MOST of us are
indeed.
To make matters worse, the
offending behaviour comes from somebody who writes MORE and
MORE OFTEN on this list that all the other members put
together.
 
Kind regards,
 
Claudio
 
 

From: tuning@yahoogroups. com
[mailto:tuning@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Charles
Lucy
Sent: 13 April 2009 02:18
To:
tuning@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re:
Suggestion for Michael - Freedom to post/speak!!
!!

Come on Claudio.
I oppose all forms of censorship, as I expect do the majority
of the tunaniks.
If the message is too long for your taste, don't read it.
Despite my spam filters on my server, I get more than a
thousands spams a week.
I just dump them; you could do the same for "long messages",
which would avoid everyone's content being censored for some
posters' long-windedness, and your laziness, impatience or whatever
it is that motivates your "disrespectful"  comment.
Let the posters post whatever they wish.

On 13 Apr 2009, at 01:27, Claudio Di Veroli wrote:

The email below - of wh ich I reproduce
the first and last paragraphs only - originally contained an
astonishing 1538 words.
This is downright disrespectful for the
list members.
 
Claudio

From: tuning@yahoogroups. com
[mailto:tuning@ yahoogroups. com]
On Behalf Of djtrancendance@ yahoo.com
Sen t:
13 April 2009 01:09
To: tuning@yahoogroups.
com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Suggestion for
Michael

--I gave of harmonic interval, melodic interval, and
unison are not
--my definitions. They are absolutely
standard in normal,
--regular music theory. 
-Carl
    I only took 1000 and 2000
level courses.  But I had never heard  ...

That's not what I
was saying. There are difference tones
between the
harmonics, not just the
fundamentals.

-

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:

>   BTW, for searches like that, Google is hopelessly vague.
>   Included in those search results you gave me were things like

The first result explains it in one sentence:
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/month.200403/msg00211.html

The second result explains it in great detail:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TrimYourPosts

The fifth result similarly gives a complete tutorial:
http://www.digital-web.com/articles/how_to_write_effective_mailing_list_email/

Here's the 7th result:
http://lists.thekrib.com/apisto/9706/msg00015.html
Its search excerpt reads, "Including the entire previous
message in a reply is not acceptable on this list."

etc.

But I'm glad you found a resource that worked for you.

-Carl

Michael Sheiman wrote:
> > > Thank you for taking the time to run this test, Mike. :-)
> > --And I certainly wouldn't assume it has anything to do with the basilar > --membrane. -Mike
> I agree it may very well not...but, rather, this was the only thing I > could think of that could explain the phenomena (that the scale not > aligned to rational fractions has done either equally as good or better > than the rational ones in all tests so far). Food for thought: if it > has nothing to do with the BM, what do you think it might be (just > personal preference alone, or something more universal)? -Me/Michael

Hard to tell from a single example without more specifics on the tuning used, but there could be phenomena associated with rational tuning that detract from the smoothness of the sound (assuming that the "roughness" is unwanted -- in this example it could go either way). There could be just enough of a periodic "buzz" to be distracting. Or it could be a chance effect of clashing harmonics with the particular timbres used.