scale/gamut

It looks like "tuning system" is nudging out "gamut"
in our recent 'scale' poll

/tuning/surveys?id=2855714

I did some more reading about "gamut", and in the original
sense

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

it corresponds nearly exactly to the contents of Scala
scale files. The only difference, as Graham pointed out,
is that the original gamut had an extent (of 3 octaves),
whereas the proposed generalization does not. Seems like
a minor difference to me. And for what it's worth, in
Scala at least, I believe there is an extent of 128 notes.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> It looks like "tuning system" is nudging out "gamut"
> in our recent 'scale' poll
>
> /tuning/surveys?id=2855714
>
> I did some more reading about "gamut", and in the original
> sense
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidonian_hand
>
> it corresponds nearly exactly to the contents of Scala
> scale files. The only difference, as Graham pointed out,
> is that the original gamut had an extent (of 3 octaves),
> whereas the proposed generalization does not. Seems like
> a minor difference to me. And for what it's worth, in
> Scala at least, I believe there is an extent of 128 notes.
>
> -Carl
>

Well the current common use of "gamut" also usually implies or states a "from (x) to (y)". Perhaps more importantly here, the term gamut in TV and video and all that also implies known limits, legal values and so on.

So although I prefer gamut myself, I would also vote for "tuning system".

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> > It looks like "tuning system" is nudging out "gamut"
> > in our recent 'scale' poll
> > /tuning/surveys?id=2855714
> > I did some more reading about "gamut", and in the original
> > sense
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidonian_hand
> > it corresponds nearly exactly to the contents of Scala
> > scale files. The only difference, as Graham pointed out,
> > is that the original gamut had an extent (of 3 octaves),
> > whereas the proposed generalization does not. Seems like
> > a minor difference to me. And for what it's worth, in
> > Scala at least, I believe there is an extent of 128 notes.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> Well the current common use of "gamut" also usually implies
> or states a "from (x) to (y)". Perhaps more importantly here,
> the term gamut in TV and video and all that also implies
> known limits, legal values and so on.
>
> So although I prefer gamut myself, I would also vote for
> "tuning system".

You don't think "tuning system" invites confusion with the
"tuning" of a temperament (given as a list of generators,
e.g. 1200 cents & 696.6 cents is a tuning for meantone)?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > > It looks like "tuning system" is nudging out "gamut"
> > > in our recent 'scale' poll
> > > /tuning/surveys?id=2855714
> > > I did some more reading about "gamut", and in the original
> > > sense
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidonian_hand
> > > it corresponds nearly exactly to the contents of Scala
> > > scale files. The only difference, as Graham pointed out,
> > > is that the original gamut had an extent (of 3 octaves),
> > > whereas the proposed generalization does not. Seems like
> > > a minor difference to me. And for what it's worth, in
> > > Scala at least, I believe there is an extent of 128 notes.
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> > Well the current common use of "gamut" also usually implies
> > or states a "from (x) to (y)". Perhaps more importantly here,
> > the term gamut in TV and video and all that also implies
> > known limits, legal values and so on.
> >
> > So although I prefer gamut myself, I would also vote for
> > "tuning system".
>
> You don't think "tuning system" invites confusion with the
> "tuning" of a temperament (given as a list of generators,
> e.g. 1200 cents & 696.6 cents is a tuning for meantone)?
>
> -Carl
>

I would think that what's in a Scala file is a concrete tuning, and a list of generators or whatever ("throw a dart at a monochord...") is a "tuning system".

>"You don't think "tuning system" invites confusion with the

"tuning" of a temperament (given as a list of generators,

e.g. 1200 cents & 696.6 cents is a tuning for meantone)?"

    Ugh...its a tough nut.  I always thought it was more clear simply calling such a thing a "tempered tuning" IE a special type of tuning made to approximate something more exact (such as JI) within a certain degree of error.  In example, "12TET is a tempered tuning for 5-limit diatonic JI" while "Pythagorean tuning is a non-tempered tuning".

  And then, we have the issue of such terms as "tempering out the comma" most often involving a shift of all notes so that the period matches 2/1 (as opposed to another interval).  But, as a side note, I think tuning should be noted as a generic formula and temperament as a way to fine-tune that formula to meet a specific goal IE "1/4 comma mean-tone is (and is intended as) a mini-max 5-limit mean-tone tuning which tempers from diatonic JI in order to achieve consistent degree of purity/impurity between intervals".
 
-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> > > Well the current common use of "gamut" also usually implies
> > > or states a "from (x) to (y)". Perhaps more importantly here,
> > > the term gamut in TV and video and all that also implies
> > > known limits, legal values and so on.
> > >
> > > So although I prefer gamut myself, I would also vote for
> > > "tuning system".
> >
> > You don't think "tuning system" invites confusion with the
> > "tuning" of a temperament (given as a list of generators,
> > e.g. 1200 cents & 696.6 cents is a tuning for meantone)?
> >
>
> I would think that what's in a Scala file is a concrete tuning,
> and a list of generators or whatever ("throw a dart at a
> monochord...") is a "tuning system".

By the way, I think gamut is a perfect generalization of its
use in TV and video. The color gamut is the total available
colors, only a subset of which are generally in use at a
given time.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > > > Well the current common use of "gamut" also usually implies
> > > > or states a "from (x) to (y)". Perhaps more importantly here,
> > > > the term gamut in TV and video and all that also implies
> > > > known limits, legal values and so on.
> > > >
> > > > So although I prefer gamut myself, I would also vote for
> > > > "tuning system".
> > >
> > > You don't think "tuning system" invites confusion with the
> > > "tuning" of a temperament (given as a list of generators,
> > > e.g. 1200 cents & 696.6 cents is a tuning for meantone)?
> > >
> >
> > I would think that what's in a Scala file is a concrete tuning,
> > and a list of generators or whatever ("throw a dart at a
> > monochord...") is a "tuning system".
>
> By the way, I think gamut is a perfect generalization of its
> use in TV and video. The color gamut is the total available
> colors, only a subset of which are generally in use at a
> given time.
>
> -Carl
>

But isn't "total available colors" in video technology a local, physically limited thing? Not "all possible colors". Whereas a Scala file could be applied with a middle C of "once in 100 years" or "196kHz".

> But isn't "total available colors" in video technology a local,
> physically limited thing? Not "all possible colors".

Yes. As it is with .scl files. Not all possible pitches, but
all pitches available to you right now (not all of which you will
use for this photograph).

>Whereas a Scala file could be applied with a middle C of "once
>in 100 years" or "196kHz".

?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > But isn't "total available colors" in video technology a local,
> > physically limited thing? Not "all possible colors".
>
> Yes. As it is with .scl files. Not all possible pitches, but
> all pitches available to you right now (not all of which you will
> use for this photograph).

Nope- it's proportions first and foremost, you can change their "scale" at any point.

>
> >Whereas a Scala file could be applied with a middle C of "once
> >in 100 years" or "196kHz".
>
> ?
>
> -Carl
>

The limits of a Scala file aren't given- you can set the "middle C" to whatever you'd like. I copy- pasted a Scala file into Csound once, and used a fundamental from some goofy astronomical figure- the ebbing and flowing of some supernova or some crap like that. :-) Naturally I used a much higher octave/harmonics, so that it would be audible within the lifespan of the human species, hehe.

MIDI limitations are not the limit of Scala files.

The point is that "gamut" is usually used with givens and knowns- bass to soprano, the visible spectrum, the color range reproducible by this monitor, etc.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> The limits of a Scala file aren't given- you can set the
> "middle C" to whatever you'd like.

Sure, but one could just as easily say that intervals
are the colors, not pitches. As we know, pitch standards
were wobbly until the 20th century.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > > But isn't "total available colors" in video technology a local,
> > > physically limited thing? Not "all possible colors".
> >
> > Yes. As it is with .scl files. Not all possible pitches, but
> > all pitches available to you right now (not all of which you will
> > use for this photograph).

Hahaha! Now I see what you're saying. Pretty slick, but I'm not buying it, from "gamut" implies that there's an A to Z, a here to there, and A and Z are basically fixed, known, whatever. The bass to the soprano. Not just the finite nature of the stuff inbetween the A and Z.