Sound example: possible triads in a PHI scale

http://tinyurl.com/qzenxf

The above link is to an mp3 file. Normally I just link directly to mp3s on my g-eo cities site but apparently yahoo group's spam filter does not seem to like that.

Anyhow, the example is of all possible triads in my PHI scale. The interval gap between notes ranges between 1.08 and 1.11...

I'm assuming around 1.08 is about where heavy roughness begins occurring and thus have avoided using interval around 1.059 (IE the minor second) or close and anything that would result in a "diminished chord" or worse level of dissonance.

I'm still fairly convinced triads like these show PHI can be used in a decently consonant manner even with normal/non-timbre-shifted instruments...but do me a favor and listen and let me know what you think. :-)

-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, djtrancendance@... wrote:
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qzenxf
>
> The above link is to an mp3 file. Normally I just link directly >to mp3s on my g-eo cities site but apparently yahoo group's spam >filter does not seem to like that.
>
> Anyhow, the example is of all possible triads in my PHI scale. >The interval gap between notes ranges between 1.08 and 1.11...
>
> I'm assuming around 1.08 is about where heavy roughness begins >occurring and thus have avoided using interval around 1.059 (IE the >minor second) or close and anything that would result in a "diminished chord" or worse level of dissonance.
>
> I'm still fairly convinced triads like these show PHI can be used >in a decently consonant manner even with normal/non-timbre-shifted >instruments...but do me a favor and listen and let me know what you >think. :-)
>
> -Michael
>

What's the tuning here? It sounds unconvincing (about anything), not because of any tuning issues, but because it's the same plinky sound with ascending tones, sopped in reverb. Before you can talk about a "decently consonant manner", you need sustained tones.

Have you ever noticed in Metallica recordings (the pre-insnaely-Autotuned ones) that the singer has mastered such a vocal tone, and the recording is processed in such a way, that you can't tell to save your live what tone he is actually singing? That's what you're doing here- your sound examples ultimately demonstrate nothing about tuning.

Before you go off like a misguided missle into some rant about what a bastard I am, hahaha!, you should carefully read and reread the posts I've made in response to yours.

For as long as you barrel along in the arrogance of ignorance, you are not going to understand the genuinely groovy and original thing you actually have done in the course of these inelegant online exchanges. It will be lost in the crap, both to others and yourself.

-Cameron Bobro

Cameron>"it's the same plinky sound with ascending tones, sopped in reverb."

    Sopped in reverb?  You may not like the instrument, but there is absolute no added reverb on it, and it's just the general MIDI guitar sample off my CS6X synthesizer.  And the sample does sustain otherwise you wouldn't hear the drone 3+ seconds after each tone is hit: it may not be as much sustain as you wish but there certainly is sustain.

  But next time sample with, say, the strings section setting on my synth which has considerably more sustain: I just picked the guitar because it is fairly bright,full, and well harmonically aligned overtone set.

>"Autotuned ones) that the singer has mastered such a vocal tone, and the
recording is processed in such a way, that you can't tell to save your
live what tone he is actually singing? That's what you're doing here"
No offense, but you are talking complete gibberish here.  There is 100% >NO< effect applied to the sample, and certainly no auto-tune.  In fact I don't even own an auto-tuner nor have I ever used reverb or chorus on any of my sound example.  Just because don't like the sound of the guitar I used or the amount of sustain doesn't mean you can justifiably say there's no sustain at all or the I loaded on reverb and auto-tune when I used neither.  I get and understand your point about the sustain and will use a string section in my next example. But, on your other quite random issues, give me a break...

>"you should carefully read and reread the posts I've made in response to yours. "
    Basically here you've said you don't like the instrument I'm using and decided to tie that problem to all sorts of other random unrelated bs like auto-tune and reverb.  Which you neither mention in your past writings to me nor are relelvent or even  relevant.  The only thing I was able to grab from this message you wrote me is you thought it would be more realistic to have more sustain, which I am fixing next sound example. 

  So, please, get off your high-horse and deal with the fact
A) I'm listening
B) I'm listening closely enough to realize what of what little you just said is relevant (more sustain) and what lot of it isn't even close (auto-tune, reverb, references to 'please read my recent past posts' even though none of them discuss auto-tune or reverb.
C) Again, referrences to reading you past post to learn about "auto-tune, reverb..." is absurd both because you never addressed those issues in your post in the first place nor are they relevant to or even used in my sound example.

   I wish you would just stay on topic, which is tuning not your pre-occupation with whining about sound-effects I never applied but you somehow 'hear'.  I am neither testing nor implying vast amounts of effects...in fact, I never use them on my sound examples nor re-tune or auto-tune: everything is programmed from scratch in the goal tuning.
 
-Michael