Not losing it

For John deLaubenfels -- (and others)

>Deja vu all over again...

That's pretty funny, John. :-)

Actually, I wasn't entirely "losing it" but thanks for taking the trouble
to cite the earlier digests concerning my "bending incapacity."

I had sent you an "off list" message, but I never got a response, so I am
beginning to doubt whether you ever received it (??)

In any case, I gave up on the SoundBlaster card. It wouldn't do the bends
even after your two "fix it" files were run. HOWEVER, the TX81Z _DID_ do
them, after adjustment with your "fix it" files.

I _AM_ getting it to work... Particularly the 5 just and 7 files WITHOUT
the springs (sorry, "softeners") are interesting for me. I note, however,
that it takes a fraction of a second after a note sounds before the bending
takes place. Is this the way it's supposed to happen, or is it something
in my system?? The "raw" 5 and 7 files are VERY interesting.

I guess, however, I am just echoing the sentiments of John Starett:

>JDL, in the quest for the retuning grail, don't forget that there
>are those of us here (at least me myself and I) who actually _like_ the
>comma pump and the other startling effects. When the commercial version is
>released :?) it would be cool to have the option to implement some of the
>old fashioned weirdness that caused such a stir here months ago.

I guess I'll opt for "weirdness" myself... There are supposedly 300+
people on this list, and it would be interesting to hear what some others
think... Maybe they already have and I just missed the big "stir" last
year... At the moment, however, the last thing I want to hear is a tuning
"experiment" that ends up sounding like 12-tET, in it's "new, improved"
formulation!

Joseph Pehrson

> [Joseph Pehrson, TD 522.8]
> I note, however, that it takes a fraction of a second after
> a note sounds before the bending takes place. Is this the
> way it's supposed to happen, or is it something in my system??

I had a discussion about this last spring with Ken Fasano,
who's writing most of the code for my JustMusic software.

I maintained that the MIDI pitch-bend command should occur
1 'tick' *before* the note-on command, to make sure that
when the note is sounded it will be at the proper pitch.
(This is how I do it in my Cakwalk CAL program 'micro.cal'
- see my website.)

Ken maintained that the small amount of time that it takes
MIDI to go from one command to the next would not be audible.

I stand by my opinion.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

I think it depend on the soundcard. My old soundblaster would slide all
over with pitchbends while the new one does not.

Darren

> I maintained that the MIDI pitch-bend command should occur
> 1 'tick' *before* the note-on command, to make sure that
> when the note is sounded it will be at the proper pitch.
> (This is how I do it in my Cakwalk CAL program 'micro.cal'
> - see my website.)
>

Joe Pehrson wrote,

>At the moment, however, the last thing I want to hear is a tuning
>"experiment" that ends up sounding like 12-tET, in it's "new, improved"
>formulation!

That is totally unfair to John deLaubenfels. He has created versions of
Bach, etc., that sound for all the world like JI, but manage to sidestep the
difficulties that have made JI a poor choice for this music in the past.

I think you mentioned that you only listened to the "ss" and "sss" files.
Those are exactly the ones that deviate the most from vertical JI, toward
12-tET. Listen to the other ones.

[I wrote:]
>>Deja vu all over again...

[Joseph Pehrson, TD 522.8:]
>That's pretty funny, John. :-)

Alas, not my creation. I think it was that famous baseball player and
manager, uhhh,... Casey, uhhh, whatisname.

>Actually, I wasn't entirely "losing it" but thanks for taking the
>trouble to cite the earlier digests concerning my "bending incapacity."

>I had sent you an "off list" message, but I never got a response, so I
>am beginning to doubt whether you ever received it (??)

Dang! No, I sure didn't! I remember vividly waiting for the other
shoe to drop. I'll e-mail you, and see if you can reply. If anyone
else has tried to e-mail me & not received a reply, please let me know
(on-list, I guess, or via a third party...). I try to answer all
e-mail.

>In any case, I gave up on the SoundBlaster card. It wouldn't do the
>bends even after your two "fix it" files were run.

No kidding, I'm surprised. Off with its head, then.

>HOWEVER, the TX81Z _DID_ do them, after adjustment with your "fix it"
>files.

Good...

>I _AM_ getting it to work... Particularly the 5 just and 7 files
>WITHOUT the springs (sorry, "softeners") are interesting for me.

Kyool...

>I note, however, that it takes a fraction of a second after a note
>sounds before the bending takes place. Is this the way it's supposed
>to happen, or is it something in my system?? The "raw" 5 and 7 files
>are VERY interesting.

Oh arggh and double arggh! No, certainly NOT supposed to happen!!
If you have a powerful PC, consider the Roland Virtual Sound Canvas,
a $60 piece of software that plays thru your sound card's .wav
capability. Not fabulous, but not bad...

>I guess, however, I am just echoing the sentiments of John Starett:

[John Starrett, TD 521.7:]
>JDL, in the quest for the retuning grail, don't forget that there
>are those of us here (at least me myself and I) who actually _like_ the
>comma pump and the other startling effects. When the commercial version is
>released :?) it would be cool to have the option to implement some of the
>old fashioned weirdness that caused such a stir here months ago.

[JP:]
>I guess I'll opt for "weirdness" myself... There are supposedly 300+
>people on this list, and it would be interesting to hear what some others
>think... Maybe they already have and I just missed the big "stir" last
>year... At the moment, however, the last thing I want to hear is a tuning
>"experiment" that ends up sounding like 12-tET, in it's "new, improved"
>formulation!

Thanks much to both of you for expressing your love of "old-fashion
weirdness!" The commercial version - yah, I'm ready!! ;?> But don't
worry, I very much share the love of stiff JI in motion; that won't go
away. Sorry I'm so slow to re-populate my web site with new stuff, but
as a long-term question, I ask both of you, and everyone else who's
interested, does the new springy stuff, in fairly stiff version (r7 and
r5), seem too tame? I think it's pretty nice, not leaving too much
lacking in tuning but definitely not so jumpy in transition as the 1999
("pre-spring") tunings. Yet, did I not once myself say I love to hear
the tuning jump? I seem to want to swing both ways...

(After listening to, and liking, the Bach/Busoni in COFT fixed tuning,
I went back and listened to some fully bent (seven!) Brahms piano
concertos. Oh yeah!!!!).

The "stir", BTW, was more over whether it was/is proper to bend the
heck out of the works of composers long dead. Some said no; I said,
well, you can guess. You didn't miss much...

Joseph, please don't waste your time in the ssss versions if your ear
likes it stiffer and jumpier. Clearly, some ears are sensitive, and
the sss's are for them. I'm interested in knowing where the spectrum
of ears falls in delight and irritation.

JdL