high third vs. 7:9 -- put to bed

Paul Erlich:
>
> So it seems you agree that the difference in context (in one case, lack
> thereof; in the other case, a very specific context) accounts for the
> difference in "sus-ness". That's what I was trying to say!

I do agree. The point is ready for the shelf. What is more important is
that...
>
>>I agree
>>with you that the chord Joe "arrived at" in both contexts is not
>>particularly agreeable.

Paul clarifies:
>
> [For those playing along, that was a reference to the last chord in the MIDI
> file Joe previously uploaded and a new version he sent us privately, in
> which a sus chord resolves to a 14:18:21 at the end].
>
> Now, does that chord sound the same to you as the one Christopher Chapman
> posted? It should if it's a 14:18:21.

It does indeed, particularly the one with the more prominent partials. It is
clear to me now that this tuning does _not_ contain the "preferred high
third." When I sang the "high third" into this item, it fought with the 7:9
third, which is clearly too high. (Sorry to be so slow, folks, but I really
had to hear it for myself. Thanks for your patience.)

However, when 14:18:21 is sounded with sine tones, it does initially appear
to be a well-tuned high third. Apparently this "softer/gentler" experience
is more easily "morphed" to fit a common concept--in this case, my concept
of a "high third major triad." Paul, you are absolutely correct that
loudness and timbre affects such a perception. You also knew that it was the
reason I accepted John Link's guitar chord as the "real thing." (Thanks
again to John for contributing that "link" ;-) to the answer.

But here is the interesting part. When I listen to the 4:5:6 examples--both
sine and "partialed"--the third sounds too low to me. I want to raise it.
(Call it "cultural conditioning" if you want to, but it certainly is not
conditioning for the novice singers in my college choir who have heard
tempered thirds all their lives.)

Now here is the _really_ interesting part. When I sang the "high third" into
these items, it did not seem to fight with the sounding 4:5 third. If my
vocal pitch was different to the extent I believe it was, it should have
created a small tornado. It didn't.

My first thought was that perhaps I was not actually singing a different
pitch and that the "illusion" theory is correct. So I sang in tune with the
"low" third and when the chord stopped sounding I could hear that my voice
had matched it. Then I sang the high third with the chord, and when
the chord stopped sounding I could clearly hear that the "high third" is not
the 4:5 third.

This really didn't surprise me, however, since I had noted that when I do
the "demo" (soon to be posted) with a large group of singer, there is a
"period of adjustment" just after the fifth is introduced in which some of
the singers are slower than others to give up the 4:5 third. During this
period, one can hear a bit of conflict as one third is replaced by the
other. When all voices arrive, peace prevails again.

That is why I was rather surprised that my voice singing the "high third"
did not seem to disturb the chord containing the 4:5 third. I'll play with
this a bit more and post any new impressions.

The bottom line, then, is that the 7:9 third is _not_ the "high third."
(Some of you "knew" that already. I'll bet you are smiling your cute little
faces off, aren't you.)

Thanks to all of you who were kind and patient enough to contribute
information and experimentation to bring us (me and anyone else who wanted
to be sure) to this important plateau.

Coming next week: sound examples of the "high third." I promise.

Jerry

Jerry wrote,

>But here is the interesting part. When I listen to the 4:5:6 examples--both
>sine and "partialed"--the third sounds too low to me. I want to raise it.
>(Call it "cultural conditioning" if you want to, but it certainly is not
>conditioning for the novice singers in my college choir who have heard
>tempered thirds all their lives.)

How does that argument run?