Simple sound comparison...and nothing else....

http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave1.wav
http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave2.wav

Simple question: which do you think sounds better?

----------------------------------
PS- No I'm not going to say what scales they are, how they were created, what the cent/fraction values are, what odd limit they are...
The last time I tried that the thread went TERRIBLY off topic.

So, this is a thread which merely asks for a simple "A sounded better" or "B sounded better" answer. And only when I see the results (and there are a decent # of results) we can go from there into the "big & nasty" mathematical questions and implications...only this time with a path set out by the results, be they good or bad.

They're just different. The first one sounds like a quite pleasant
detuned pandiatonic major scale sort of thing, and the second one
sounds like some slightly detuned perhaps 11-limit otonality. Neither
one has any more inherent goodness than the other. The first one is
colorful and rainbow-ish, and the second one is some kind of intense
burning light or something. At the moment, I prefer colorful
rainbow-ish things, so I'll say the first one.

-Mike

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:00 PM, djtrancendance
<djtrancendance@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave1.wav
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave2.wav
>
> Simple question: which do you think sounds better?
>
> ----------------------------------
> PS- No I'm not going to say what scales they are, how they were created,
> what the cent/fraction values are, what odd limit they are...
> The last time I tried that the thread went TERRIBLY off topic.
>
> So, this is a thread which merely asks for a simple "A sounded better" or "B
> sounded better" answer. And only when I see the results (and there are a
> decent # of results) we can go from there into the "big & nasty"
> mathematical questions and implications...only this time with a path set out
> by the results, be they good or bad.
>
>

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:00 PM, djtrancendance
> <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave1.wav
>> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave2.wav
>>
>> Simple question: which do you think sounds better?

They're clearly different. I had no trouble in distinguishing them consistently 10 times out of 10. Number 2 has prominent and regular beats, they're much less noticeable in number 1. I can't say which is better without a context. Number 2 is more interesting to listen to but number 1 still has its uses.

Graham

--I can't say which is better without a context.  -Graham
   A context would be which one achieves, in your opinion, the best balance between degree/amount of tonal color and consonance/ease-of-listening.

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

From: Graham Breed <gbreed@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Simple sound comparison...and nothing else....
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 10:26 PM

> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:00 PM, djtrancendance

> <djtrancendance@ yahoo.com> wrote:

>>

>> http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ 7notesperoctave1 .wav

>> http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ 7notesperoctave2 .wav

>>

>> Simple question: which do you think sounds better?

They're clearly different. I had no trouble in

distinguishing them consistently 10 times out of 10. Number

2 has prominent and regular beats, they're much less

noticeable in number 1. I can't say which is better without

a context. Number 2 is more interesting to listen to but

number 1 still has its uses.

Graham

It's almost the same thing as asking whether or not a maj9 chord
sounds better than a 4:5:6:7:9:11 chord. They're just different. There
are plenty of times that the maj9 chord would sound significantly more
consonant, as are there plenty of times the 4:5:6:7:9:11 chord would.
You cannot reliably hope to predict an individual's satisfaction upon
hearing a particular chord in every instance in which it could be used
and quantify that with the "consonance" label.

In terms of this specific example set, the first one is easier to
listen to because something about the detuning of the second one does
indeed throw me off. If you put together a JI major scale played all
at once and then a JI 4:5:6:7:8:9:10:11 or whatever it is that second
one is, it might not sound quite that way.

-Mike

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Michael Sheiman
<djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>
> --I can't say which is better without a context.  -Graham
>    A context would be which one achieves, in your opinion, the best balance
> between degree/amount of tonal color and consonance/ease-of-listening.
>
> -Michael
>
> --- On Sun, 4/12/09, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> From: Graham Breed <gbreed@...>
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Simple sound comparison...and nothing else....
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 10:26 PM
>
>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:00 PM, djtrancendance
>> <djtrancendance@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ 7notesperoctave1 .wav
>>> http://www.geocitie s.com/djtrancend ance/PHI/ 7notesperoctave2 .wav
>>>
>>> Simple question: which do you think sounds better?
>
> They're clearly different. I had no trouble in
> distinguishing them consistently 10 times out of 10. Number
> 2 has prominent and regular beats, they're much less
> noticeable in number 1. I can't say which is better without
> a context. Number 2 is more interesting to listen to but
> number 1 still has its uses.
>
> Graham
>
>

A sounded better.

I haven't been here in years, was reminded about the group by the logo contest email, been busy with other aspects of life lately.

B is annoying. I'm not sure thats the precise mathematical answer you are looking for, as the other responses are talking about different qualities of these two chords. I don't like to see [tuning] digging a deeper hole, a lot of these ideas are acceptable to more than the 1/1M that are really into it. If music were to be changed for the better, the extreme weird/annoying sounds should be left out.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "djtrancendance" <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave1.wav
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave2.wav
>
> Simple question: which do you think sounds better?
>
> ----------------------------------
> PS- No I'm not going to say what scales they are, how they were created, what the cent/fraction values are, what odd limit they are...
> The last time I tried that the thread went TERRIBLY off topic.
>
> So, this is a thread which merely asks for a simple "A sounded better" or "B sounded better" answer. And only when I see the results (and there are a decent # of results) we can go from there into the "big & nasty" mathematical questions and implications...only this time with a path set out by the results, be they good or bad.
>

For me, B sounded much better.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "djtrancendance" <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave1.wav
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave2.wav
>
> Simple question: which do you think sounds better?
>
> ----------------------------------
> PS- No I'm not going to say what scales they are, how they were created, what the cent/fraction values are, what odd limit they are...
> The last time I tried that the thread went TERRIBLY off topic.
>
> So, this is a thread which merely asks for a simple "A sounded better" or "B sounded better" answer. And only when I see the results (and there are a decent # of results) we can go from there into the "big & nasty" mathematical questions and implications...only this time with a path set out by the results, be they good or bad.
>

Just from my "unenlightened" personal view ... B sounds significantly more pleasant -- for two reasons. First, I hate those terribly stretched octaves. And then, I love harmonic synchronicity.

Petr

I like B better too.Are these your most consonant 9 tone chords so far?

It appears to me the harmonic series should give the most consonant chords
of any number of tones, in one octave or outside the octave.
And lately have been thinking about scales and chord dissonance and
progression as comming from the harmonic series repeating in fifths
(connected in fourths).
Works better than anything I've tried before.

Marcel

Are you talking about quartal or quintal harmony? or a blend?

That all reduces down to major seconds...

And it would help if Yahoo didn't put so much crap in each message...

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
> I like B better too.
> Are these your most consonant 9 tone chords so far?
>
> It appears to me the harmonic series should give the most consonant chords
> of any number of tones, in one octave or outside the octave.
> And lately have been thinking about scales and chord dissonance and
> progression as comming from the harmonic series repeating in fifths
> (connected in fourths).
> Works better than anything I've tried before.
>
> Marcel
>
>

--"I like B better too.--Are these your most consonant 9 tone chords so far?" -Marcel
   These are 7-tone chords, not 9-tone ones.
   And, yes I know the harmonic series is supposedly the most consonant.
   In fact...on of the two sound examples IS the harmonic series. :-0

>
> Are you talking about quartal or quintal harmony? or a blend?
>
> That all reduces down to major seconds...
>
> And it would help if Yahoo didn't put so much crap in each message...
>

Nono I'm talking about harmony comming in the first place simply from the
harmonic series.
This is consonant harmony.
And the structure music moves in is many harmonic series on put on top of
the other etc with a quint difference
so for instance 1:2:3 etc -> 15:16:17:18:19:20:21:22:23:24 etc
Now shifted by 3/2 and put on top of the orgininal. Repeat this till
infinity.
Now you get wherever you are allways the harmonic series from the tonic, and
the harmonic series a quint higher, and a quart higher and another quart
higher etc.
The quart is now a dissonance, signalling a change of tonic to the harmonic
series a quart higher, or giving tension in harmony which wishes to resolve
a quart higher.
Construction of a scale in this whole structure is now about "cadense".
Giving for instance 1/1 17/16 9/8 19/16 5/4 4/3 17/12 3/2 19/12 5/3 16/9
15/8 2/1 for normal western music.
I think I'm calling this all 'Harmonic JI' :)
The minor chord while in a normal major piece is now 1/1 19/16 3/2
Though you can make a minor chord of 1/1 5/4 5/3 and place the base in 5/3
to make 1/1 6/5 3/2. Though this bass will not be the fundamental bass.
The real fundamental bass moves in quints and quarts and their products.

Marcel

djtrancendance wrote:
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave1.wav
> http://www.geocities.com/djtrancendance/PHI/7notesperoctave2.wav
> > Simple question: which do you think sounds better?

The first time I listened, I had a slight preference for the first one, which has a nice shimmering quality compared with the drone-like sound of the second example. I came back a few minutes later and played them in the opposite order. This time the tranquil quality of the second example sounded better than the agitated quality of the first example. But the first example seems to vary a bit depending on the orientation of my ears in relation to the speakers. So I have to call this one a toss-up.

What I'm hearing in your reply is

CGD stack on top of each other - this is quintal harmony, right?
(and you can go crazy until you take up the entire spectrum CGDAEBF# etc)

Quartal harmony - well a suspended 4th gives you that in an "open" voicing
CGF

Perhaps I'm not grasping what you are saying because if you ware to play
those notes on a piano for instance the harmonic series for each chord
CGD
or
CGF
would align in 5ths or 4ths.

I've done a bit in this type of harmonic scheme (I'm sure I'm not alone
here)

Chris

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
> Are you talking about quartal or quintal harmony? or a blend?
>>
>> That all reduces down to major seconds...
>>
>> And it would help if Yahoo didn't put so much crap in each message...
>>
>
> Nono I'm talking about harmony comming in the first place simply from the
> harmonic series.
> This is consonant harmony.
> And the structure music moves in is many harmonic series on put on top of
> the other etc with a quint difference
> so for instance 1:2:3 etc -> 15:16:17:18:19:20:21:22:23:24 etc
> Now shifted by 3/2 and put on top of the orgininal. Repeat this till
> infinity.
> Now you get wherever you are allways the harmonic series from the tonic,
> and the harmonic series a quint higher, and a quart higher and another quart
> higher etc.
> The quart is now a dissonance, signalling a change of tonic to the harmonic
> series a quart higher, or giving tension in harmony which wishes to resolve
> a quart higher.
> Construction of a scale in this whole structure is now about "cadense".
> Giving for instance 1/1 17/16 9/8 19/16 5/4 4/3 17/12 3/2 19/12 5/3 16/9
> 15/8 2/1 for normal western music.
> I think I'm calling this all 'Harmonic JI' :)
> The minor chord while in a normal major piece is now 1/1 19/16 3/2
> Though you can make a minor chord of 1/1 5/4 5/3 and place the base in 5/3
> to make 1/1 6/5 3/2. Though this bass will not be the fundamental bass.
> The real fundamental bass moves in quints and quarts and their products.
>
> Marcel
>
>

Hi Chris,

What I'm hearing in your reply is
>
> CGD stack on top of each other - this is quintal harmony, right?
> (and you can go crazy until you take up the entire spectrum CGDAEBF# etc)
>
> Quartal harmony - well a suspended 4th gives you that in an "open" voicing
> CGF
>
> Perhaps I'm not grasping what you are saying because if you ware to play
> those notes on a piano for instance the harmonic series for each chord
> CGD
> or
> CGF
> would align in 5ths or 4ths.
>
> I've done a bit in this type of harmonic scheme (I'm sure I'm not alone
> here)
>

Ah no this is not what I mean.
Uhm I don't know how to explain it in depth now and this is not the place.
But I gave an example scale that comes from my new theory.
1/1 17/16 9/8 19/16 5/4 4/3 17/12 3/2 19/12 5/3 16/9 15/8 2/1
(the above scale is only a subset and doesn't give the complete picture)
The scale is also offcourse relative to the then sounding true fundamental
base (so it shifts all the time)

What I partly ment is that you can walk up and down the harmonic series
melodically, but that the way we make music we connect harmonic series
segments by fifths / fourths (same thing).
And when you play for instance the dominant 7th chord of 1/1 5/4 3/2 16/9
the 16/9 signals dissonance to the tonic 1/1 and you want to move the tonic
closer to that place, also in reverse the 1/1 signals dissonance to 16/9.
They then both want to move to 4/3 as new tonic and you can form a harmonic
harmony there by 4/3 5/3 2/1 with 4/3 new tonic.
It seems western music allways follows connecting the 15:16:17:18:19:20
harmonic segments.
You can build other scales by either deepening the harmonic serie like this
30:31:32:33:34:35:36:37:38:39:40 which gives great results.
Or by taking a different part of the harmonic series, for instance
21:22:23:24:25:26:27:28, and connecting them by fourths, but the resulting
scale gives no real consonant / harmonic harmonies from the tonic. (though I
need to investigate more as perhaps it's possible to lay the tonic in a
different degree of the scale)
etc etc

In any case this way of thinking is also working out amazingly well in
transcribing actual music.
Will soon upload the full length versions of the beethoven and lassus
pieces, and they've never sounded better.
Will then also make a post detailing my new theory of Harmonic JI.

Marcel