[tuning] $100 Drei Equale tuning competition

I'm hereby starting a tuning competition for Beethoven's Drei Equale No.1

The prize for the winner is €100.- (100 euro, $ amount will depend on
currency conversion at the tme of payment)
The winner is decided by popular vote, either here on the tuning list in
either a thread or by poll (if Carl is ok with that, otherwise on my
website)
I will prepare the submissions and render them to mp3 in a way that all
submissions are equal except for the tuning.
I will render each of the 4 voices seperate so the submissions can also be
judged for melody more easily, aswell as the full piece for judgement of
harmony.
Submissions till March 21.
Voting will start about a week later (after I've rendered all submissions to
mp3 with the same sounds) and last a few days, will sort the specifics out
later.

Enter by sending me any tuning you wish by email, JI, extended JI, adaptive
JI, any temperament / meantone etc, of Beethoven's Drei Equale No.1 in Scala
sequence file format, MTS MIDI, or pitch bend MIDI.
My email adresses are m.develde (at) gmail.com and marcel (at) develde.net
I must be able to make an audio rendering of your file that is exactly the
same as the other files other than the tuning.
You can send more than one submission. When 2 people send the same tuning,
the one that was sent to me first will count the other not.
The only submissions I will not accept are tunings of previously made public
submissions with just one or 2 notes slightly different etc, only serious
submissions please.

Why am I calling out this competition?
I think it will help people take a good look at my solution, see/hear that
there is not better solution (should mine win), and hope this will prove
that JI can do all common practice music and do it better than any other
tuning.
I think my solution will likely win, though if there's a better solution out
there I will gladly pay €100.- to know about it.
In the end, I also hope this competition will lead to more people getting
involved in retuning common practice music and in this way help move forward
insights into tuning systems and music.

You can find the Drei Equali No.1 files at www.develde.net
The score, 12tet MIDI and mp3 audio.
And my JI submission in MIDI (much improved version of my earlyer post of
this piece), Scala sequence file and JI transcription in an excell sheet
(which you can modify and copy/paste into the Scala sequence file should you
choose to work this way).

I hope this is well received. All comments welcome.

Happy retuning!
Marcel

Just noticed I got the title wrong.
The title sais $100, that should be €100 which is more money :)

Marcel

Sorry just noticed one more mistake.
Both the mp3 and MIDI of the 12tet version on www.develde.net were wrong.
I don't know how it happened but corrected them now.
I you were fast and downloaded before this post then please redownload.
Sorry about that.

Marcel

Hi Marcel.

#1. Do you also accept versions which you've already heard earlier? IIRC, I've sent you one a few months ago -- hope you still have it.

#2. How many judges will there be?

#3. To be honest, I found it more interesting to listen to your 9/12/9 5-limit composition rather than to various retunings of Beethoven. :-D -- BTW: Does it have any particular reason why there's the strange major/minor chord at the very end?

Petr

Hi Petr!

Hi Marcel.
>
> #1. Do you also accept versions which you've already heard earlier? IIRC,
> I've sent you one a few months ago -- hope you still have it.
>

Yes offcourse I still have it and accept it :)
I will also send it to you shortly including an mp3 rendering with the same
sound as my version on www.develde.net

>
> #2. How many judges will there be?
>

Everybody who votes is a judge.
Hope to be able to do the voting by poll on this tuning list, though if
anybody has a better idea let me know.

>
> #3. To be honest, I found it more interesting to listen to your 9/12/9
> 5-limit composition rather than to various retunings of Beethoven. :-D --
> BTW: Does it have any particular reason why there's the strange major/minor
> chord at the very end?
>
> Petr
>

No there's no particular reason.
I simply set the number of chords to come out of the algorithm to 960. I
didn't do any cutting afterwards.
So it starts randomly and ends randomly.
If I were to run the algorithm again it would be a completely different 960
chords (or 100000 chords if I set it that way etc)
I will continue with developing the algorithm but I think retuning common
practice music is even more important for understanding how JI works.

Thanks for your submission!

Marcel

1) There is quite a bit of money on the line. Are you going to take
precautions to stop people from voting duplicately? How are you going to set
it up so that any old idiot with Torbutton can't just make a 12-tet
rendition and win?

2) Will the entries be anonymous while voting is conducted? Will we know
whose rendition is whose?

3) You realize that there are going to be like 90 entries consisting of the
composition ran through the same adaptive-JI algorithm, right?

-Mike

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
> Hi Petr!
>
> Hi Marcel.
>>
>> #1. Do you also accept versions which you've already heard earlier? IIRC,
>> I've sent you one a few months ago -- hope you still have it.
>>
>
> Yes offcourse I still have it and accept it :)
> I will also send it to you shortly including an mp3 rendering with the same
> sound as my version on www.develde.net
>
>
>>
>> #2. How many judges will there be?
>>
>
> Everybody who votes is a judge.
> Hope to be able to do the voting by poll on this tuning list, though if
> anybody has a better idea let me know.
>
>
>>
>> #3. To be honest, I found it more interesting to listen to your 9/12/9
>> 5-limit composition rather than to various retunings of Beethoven. :-D --
>> BTW: Does it have any particular reason why there's the strange major/minor
>> chord at the very end?
>>
>> Petr
>>
>
> No there's no particular reason.
> I simply set the number of chords to come out of the algorithm to 960. I
> didn't do any cutting afterwards.
> So it starts randomly and ends randomly.
> If I were to run the algorithm again it would be a completely different 960
> chords (or 100000 chords if I set it that way etc)
> I will continue with developing the algorithm but I think retuning common
> practice music is even more important for understanding how JI works.
>
> Thanks for your submission!
>
> Marcel
>
>

Marcel,

Based on my experience with the SoOn contest I have to echo Mike's concern.

I suggest the following:

1. Only people who submit an entry can vote for the money - and only after all entries are made anonymous and assign a random identifier to try to insure as many as possible entries are actually listened to.

2. Public voting is for information only.

In an idealized world the results of 1. and 2. should be identical or real close.

If you need hosting, or a web page with a streaming player, I will be happy to provide that for your contest. (The player can even be randomized if desired - see the link below my signature) Also I can provide you a throw away email account that will be forwarded to any email address you wish - though it seems you are using a personal account already.

I'm keenly interested in the results. I don't know enough to enter at this point but at least I'm starting to understand what this is about (i.e. JI).

Thanks,

Chris

http://center.soonlabel.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=65

I don't think that 1 is a great idea. All I'd have to do in that case is
just send in several renderings in different common tunings (various well
temperaments, 19-tet, whatever) and then just vote for my "main" entry on
all of the accounts.

I'm not really sure what a solution to this is - I'm pretty stumped over it.
Even with all of this, it also true that I could just get my friends on
Facebook to sign up and vote and so on - I have quite a few of them :D

but I suppose that is to be expected.

Perhaps the best solution is just to make it a tuning list-only poll, and
only let people who are currently signed up for the list vote, or something
like that. Impose some date cutoff - say you have to have been a member of
the list for 6 months or a year or something to vote. That way it is ensured
that people won't just make new accounts and vote themselves up twice.

There should also be some way to determine from the outset whether two
tunings are identical or not. I can't imagine how many entries there will be
consisting of the piece run through adaptive-ji with 12-tet as the root.

-Mike

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 9:58 PM, christopherv <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Marcel,
>
> Based on my experience with the SoOn contest I have to echo Mike's concern.
>
> I suggest the following:
>
> 1. Only people who submit an entry can vote for the money - and only after
> all entries are made anonymous and assign a random identifier to try to
> insure as many as possible entries are actually listened to.
>
> 2. Public voting is for information only.
>
> In an idealized world the results of 1. and 2. should be identical or real
> close.
>
> If you need hosting, or a web page with a streaming player, I will be happy
> to provide that for your contest. (The player can even be randomized if
> desired - see the link below my signature) Also I can provide you a throw
> away email account that will be forwarded to any email address you wish -
> though it seems you are using a personal account already.
>
> I'm keenly interested in the results. I don't know enough to enter at this
> point but at least I'm starting to understand what this is about (i.e. JI).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
>
> http://center.soonlabel.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=65
>
>
>

Hi Mike!

1) There is quite a bit of money on the line. Are you going to take
> precautions to stop people from voting duplicately? How are you going to set
> it up so that any old idiot with Torbutton can't just make a 12-tet
> rendition and win?
>

Well I thought the yahoo tuning list poll would take care of that, but
perhaps it is indeed better to only let existing accounts votes count (check
for this after the voting and discount new account votes if such a thing is
possible).
Though if this composition attracts significant enough interest from outside
the tuning group an alternative will perhaps be needed.
I saw Chris very kindly offered his help, perhaps if there's enough interest
in the competition this would be better.
Btw, 12tet can't be an entry anymore since I allready posted the 12tet and
pythagorean tunings on my website :)
I mean I'll include 12tet and pythagorean in the final vote, but there's no
money to be won from them for anybody.

2) Will the entries be anonymous while voting is conducted? Will we know
> whose rendition is whose?
>
I don't really have a preference for this. But mine isn't anonymous to start
with and neither is Peter's one as it's been online on my site till a few
weeks ago.
So no not really unless anybody wishes to be anonymous then they can say so
to me in the submission email and only I will know who it is.

3) You realize that there are going to be like 90 entries consisting of the
> composition ran through the same adaptive-JI algorithm, right?
>
> -Mike
>

Right now I don't think there'll even be 10 entries in total :)
An not more than 50 people voting at most :)
But who knows, I'll see how many entries I get and find a suitable fair
process for voting.
Perhaps if there are several entries that are very much alike, for instance
5 similar meantones, it may be most fair to first split the entries into
categories, and then let the winner after voting of each category go on to
the final vote.
Otherwise for instance meantones may get the most votes overall, but as
they're spread over 5 entries 12tet may end up beeing the single tuning with
the most votes lol.
But I am good of trust of people to start with. I don't think anybody on
this tuning list will deliberately cheat or anything like that.
It's a fair competition where the outcome will be very interesting. Which
tuning is best for common practice music.

Marcel

> Hi Mike!
>
>> 1) There is quite a bit of money on the line. Are you going to take precautions to stop people from voting duplicately? How are you going to set it up so that any old idiot with Torbutton can't just make a 12-tet rendition and win?
>
> Well I thought the yahoo tuning list poll would take care of that, but perhaps it is indeed better to only let existing accounts votes count (check for this after the voting and discount new account votes if such a thing is possible).
> Though if this composition attracts significant enough interest from outside the tuning group an alternative will perhaps be needed.

If you open this up outside the tuning group then it's pointless. It
will turn into a contest of who can rally the most people to vote for
them. It's like athletes who are forced to use steroids in order to
remain competitive.

>> 2) Will the entries be anonymous while voting is conducted? Will we know whose rendition is whose?
>
> I don't really have a preference for this. But mine isn't anonymous to start with and neither is Peter's one as it's been online on my site till a few weeks ago.
> So no not really unless anybody wishes to be anonymous then they can say so to me in the submission email and only I will know who it is.

If it's not anonymous, then that only makes it more pointless and easier to rig.

>> 3) You realize that there are going to be like 90 entries consisting of the composition ran through the same adaptive-JI algorithm, right?
> Right now I don't think there'll even be 10 entries in total :)
> An not more than 50 people voting at most :)

The way you have it set up you are basically offering $150 to the guy
who can best rig the system, and you're talking about promoting it
outside of the tuning list. You don't think people will be interested?

I hope that you would just make this tuning list only, old accounts
only, anonymous votes only. That's it. The only one who should know
whose rendition belongs to whom is you. Or drop the $150 so that we
don't see cheating, if you are really serious about seeing which
tuning system would win in an informal poll.

-Mike

Hi Chris!

> Marcel,
>
> Based on my experience with the SoOn contest I have to echo Mike's concern.
>
> I suggest the following:
>
> 1. Only people who submit an entry can vote for the money - and only after
> all entries are made anonymous and assign a random identifier to try to
> insure as many as possible entries are actually listened to.
>

No I like it if many people can vote.
And there are likely not going to be many entries. I'm thinking 10 at most.
(though hope i'm wrong)

>
> 2. Public voting is for information only.
>
> In an idealized world the results of 1. and 2. should be identical or real
> close.
>
> If you need hosting, or a web page with a streaming player, I will be happy
> to provide that for your contest. (The player can even be randomized if
> desired - see the link below my signature) Also I can provide you a throw
> away email account that will be forwarded to any email address you wish -
> though it seems you are using a personal account already.
>

Thank you very much for your offer!
Should there be many entries and significant interest and entries from
outside the tuning list then I may take you up your offer :)
But right now I don't think it'll be needed.

>
> I'm keenly interested in the results. I don't know enough to enter at this
> point but at least I'm starting to understand what this is about (i.e. JI).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>

So am I, and while I think JI will win, perhaps it won't. JI beeing best is
only my personal opinion, and maybe even my ears can get convinced by
another tuning system.
The competition isn't about JI nessecarily. I see it as a competition of
which tuning system can give the best result for common practice music.
I think the Beethoven piece is a good piece to use for this as it doesn't
seem to me to favour any tuning system over another. All tuning systems
should run into trouble with it and show their "colours", both their
strengths and weaknesses, and it's defenately not JI friendly.

Marcel

> If you open this up outside the tuning group then it's pointless. It
> will turn into a contest of who can rally the most people to vote for
> them. It's like athletes who are forced to use steroids in order to
> remain competitive.

Yes you're right.
Ok, tuning list only.

If it's not anonymous, then that only makes it more pointless and easier to
> rig.
>

If it's tuning list only I don't see why it would make it easyer to rig.
I think voting is probably best left anonymous so people may feel less urged
to vote for a friend.
But there is no real anonymity in the entries anyhow since one can send ones
entry to friends and they'll hear which one it is in the final vote it seems
to me.

The way you have it set up you are basically offering $150 to the guy
> who can best rig the system, and you're talking about promoting it
> outside of the tuning list. You don't think people will be interested?
>
> I hope that you would just make this tuning list only, old accounts
> only, anonymous votes only. That's it.

If technically possible (to check for old account votes only), yes I agree.

> The only one who should know
> whose rendition belongs to whom is you.

I'm good enough of trust to think people on this list will vote for what
they think is the best tuning.
And anonymity can't be very good anyhow for the entries unless the person
who enters a tuning wants to be anonymous him/herself.

> Or drop the $150 so that we
> don't see cheating, if you are really serious about seeing which
> tuning system would win in an informal poll.
>
> -Mike

I think the €100.- ($142 right now i think) is a good incentive that'll do
more good than bad.
And it's too late to retract anyhow, I've allready said it :)
But thanks for your worries and thinking along! And do indeed agree on the
tuning list only, thanks!

Marcel

There is no point in not making it anonymous, and a point in making it
anonymous. Given the two, I don't see why you insist so much on the
former. In fact, it would be even MORE interesting that way, since
people wouldn't even know which rendition was theirs anymore, given
that you will be rendering the MIDI files yourself. They will all be
undoubtedly quite close.

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If you open this up outside the tuning group then it's pointless. It
>> will turn into a contest of who can rally the most people to vote for
>> them. It's like athletes who are forced to use steroids in order to
>> remain competitive.
>
> Yes you're right.
> Ok, tuning list only.
>
>
>> If it's not anonymous, then that only makes it more pointless and easier to rig.
>
> If it's tuning list only I don't see why it would make it easyer to rig.
> I think voting is probably best left anonymous so people may feel less urged to vote for a friend.
> But there is no real anonymity in the entries anyhow since one can send ones entry to friends and they'll hear which one it is in the final vote it seems to me.
>
>
>> The way you have it set up you are basically offering $150 to the guy
>> who can best rig the system, and you're talking about promoting it
>> outside of the tuning list. You don't think people will be interested?
>>
>> I hope that you would just make this tuning list only, old accounts
>> only, anonymous votes only. That's it.
>
> If technically possible (to check for old account votes only), yes I agree.
>
>
>>
>> The only one who should know
>> whose rendition belongs to whom is you.
>
> I'm good enough of trust to think people on this list will vote for what they think is the best tuning.
> And anonymity can't be very good anyhow for the entries unless the person who enters a tuning wants to be anonymous him/herself.
>
>
>>
>> Or drop the $150 so that we
>> don't see cheating, if you are really serious about seeing which
>> tuning system would win in an informal poll.
>>
>> -Mike
>
> I think the €100.- ($142 right now i think) is a good incentive that'll do more good than bad.
> And it's too late to retract anyhow, I've allready said it :)
> But thanks for your worries and thinking along! And do indeed agree on the tuning list only, thanks!
>
> Marcel
>

Marcel,

Why don't you consider appointing a jury to decide which entry
qualifies to win? As the competition-maker, you could select 5 trusted
people from the Tuning and MakeMicroMusic lists and let them judge the
entries. It could be done in 2 or 3 stages (semi-finals, finals,
etc...) for elimination purposes. When such stakes are in question, I
don't trust the voting system. I've never been one to favour democracy
either. I share Mike's concerns about the competition turning into
promoting a winner who can rig the system the best.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 9, 2010, at 7:39 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

>> Hi Mike!
>>
>>> 1) There is quite a bit of money on the line. Are you going to
>>> take precautions to stop people from voting duplicately? How are >>> you going to set it up so that any old idiot with Torbutton can't
>>> just make a 12-tet rendition and win?
>>
>> Well I thought the yahoo tuning list poll would take care of that,
>> but perhaps it is indeed better to only let existing accounts votes
>> count (check for this after the voting and discount new account
>> votes if such a thing is possible).
>> Though if this composition attracts significant enough interest
>> from outside the tuning group an alternative will perhaps be needed.
>
> If you open this up outside the tuning group then it's pointless. It
> will turn into a contest of who can rally the most people to vote for
> them. It's like athletes who are forced to use steroids in order to
> remain competitive.
>
>>> 2) Will the entries be anonymous while voting is conducted? Will
>>> we know whose rendition is whose?
>>
>> I don't really have a preference for this. But mine isn't anonymous
>> to start with and neither is Peter's one as it's been online on my
>> site till a few weeks ago.
>> So no not really unless anybody wishes to be anonymous then they
>> can say so to me in the submission email and only I will know who
>> it is.
>
> If it's not anonymous, then that only makes it more pointless and
> easier to rig.
>
>>> 3) You realize that there are going to be like 90 entries
>>> consisting of the composition ran through the same adaptive-JI
>>> algorithm, right?
>> Right now I don't think there'll even be 10 entries in total :)
>> An not more than 50 people voting at most :)
>
> The way you have it set up you are basically offering $150 to the guy
> who can best rig the system, and you're talking about promoting it
> outside of the tuning list. You don't think people will be interested?
>
> I hope that you would just make this tuning list only, old accounts
> only, anonymous votes only. That's it. The only one who should know
> whose rendition belongs to whom is you. Or drop the $150 so that we
> don't see cheating, if you are really serious about seeing which
> tuning system would win in an informal poll.
>
> -Mike

> There is no point in not making it anonymous, and a point in making it
> anonymous.
>

Well I'd like to name the tuning system of each entry and point out their
specific quirks.
For instance with my JI version there are 4 wolfs (deliberatly, and I belief
they are supposed to be there to be in tune) and I want to point this out
otherwise many people won't even know they're there.
With an adaptive JI I'll want to point out the comma shifts in the melodies,
otherwise some people won't even hear them.
Etc etc.
So the tunings I dont want to be anonymous, I don't think a blind listening
test is best for this competition, it would be asking too much from the
voters.
As for the people behind the entries, I don't care much either way, but the
tunings themselves will allready give away in many cases who's behind them.

> Given the two, I don't see why you insist so much on the
> former. In fact, it would be even MORE interesting that way, since
> people wouldn't even know which rendition was theirs anymore, given
> that you will be rendering the MIDI files yourself. They will all be
> undoubtedly quite close.
>

No I think it will be too much to ask from the voters and too many people
will miss too many specifics of each tuning.
If people know beforehand which tuning system it is they'll more easily
focus their attention to the possible "flaws" of this tuning system, which
is a good thing I think.
Sorry but I really don't belief in a completely blind system for a popular
vote on this list. Especially not if there are many entries, I think it
would lower the quality of the votes considerably.
And besides even in a completely blind system I don't think people won't
know anymore which tuning is theirs. The sound I use to render is very
revealing of the tuning, I know I'd personally pick out everything
correctly.

Marcel

Hi Oz!

Marcel,
>
> Why don't you consider appointing a jury to decide which entry
> qualifies to win? As the competition-maker, you could select 5 trusted
> people from the Tuning and MakeMicroMusic lists and let them judge the
> entries. It could be done in 2 or 3 stages (semi-finals, finals,
> etc...) for elimination purposes. When such stakes are in question, I
> don't trust the voting system. I've never been one to favour democracy
> either. I share Mike's concerns about the competition turning into
> promoting a winner who can rig the system the best.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>

I will consider it if there are enough entries to give reason for this.

I do want to say that I do not mean this competition for everybody to just
send some random tuning and hope to perhaps win by surprise or just for the
fun of entering.
*Please only submit a tuning if you truly belief that your tuning is better
than my JI tuning on www.develde.net and better than 12tet.*
Please only serious entries.

Marcel

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> Well I'd like to name the tuning system of each entry and point out their specific quirks.
> For instance with my JI version there are 4 wolfs (deliberatly, and I belief they are supposed to be there to be in tune) and I want to point this out otherwise many people won't even know they're there.

Everyone will hear the wolfs, man.

> With an adaptive JI I'll want to point out the comma shifts in the melodies, otherwise some people won't even hear them.

Alright, I suppose that's fine by me.

> Etc etc.
> So the tunings I dont want to be anonymous, I don't think a blind listening test is best for this competition, it would be asking too much from the voters.
> As for the people behind the entries, I don't care much either way, but the tunings themselves will allready give away in many cases who's behind them.

I would personally prefer that the people behind the entries remain
anonymous so as to avoid bias. That was what I was originally alluding
to.

> No I think it will be too much to ask from the voters and too many people will miss too many specifics of each tuning.
> If people know beforehand which tuning system it is they'll more easily focus their attention to the possible "flaws" of this tuning system, which is a good thing I think.
> Sorry but I really don't belief in a completely blind system for a popular vote on this list. Especially not if there are many entries, I think it would lower the quality of the votes considerably.
> And besides even in a completely blind system I don't think people won't know anymore which tuning is theirs. The sound I use to render is very revealing of the tuning, I know I'd personally pick out everything correctly.

You realize that this is going to be a contest of who can come up with
the smoothest sounding adaptive-JI algorithm, right? Expect to get
like 3 or 4 entries that are adaptive-JI with 12-tet as the root, all
with people manually going in afterwards in Logic to manually touch up
the pitch bends to make it smoother. If you're giving $150 out to the
best sounding tuning, you think people are going to submit 19-tet and
the like?

They will all sound very similar, although I do expect you might be
able to pick your own work out just because of certain distinguishing
features, slight though they may be.

I think it's a good idea, and FWIW I'll be entering, as long as
there's no room for cheating. Otherwise I am certain to lose unless I
compromise my own integrity.

-Mike

> Everyone will hear the wolfs, man.
>

No really, it's funny how people not hear them, yet hear it as wrong if I
remove the wolfs. 3 out of the 4 wolfs are not there because of a comma
problem, they can easily be removed.

I would personally prefer that the people behind the entries remain
> anonymous so as to avoid bias. That was what I was originally alluding
> to.
>

Well, I would probably end up beeing the least anonymous entry then as
people are so familiar with my tuning.
And I will describe the tuning including the wolfs etc.
I'll think about it.

You realize that this is going to be a contest of who can come up with
> the smoothest sounding adaptive-JI algorithm, right? Expect to get
> like 3 or 4 entries that are adaptive-JI with 12-tet as the root, all
> with people manually going in afterwards in Logic to manually touch up
> the pitch bends to make it smoother.
>

Well I'm glad you have this trust in your tuning system :)
The end comparison will tell.

> If you're giving $150 out to the
> best sounding tuning, you think people are going to submit 19-tet and
> the like?
>

No but that's good, I don't want 19-tet and the like. I think common
practice music is right now the best test there is for any tuning system.
And I think it's likely that the winning tuning system can also tune more
exotic music the best if understood how it "works", JI certainately could
fit that bill.

I think it's a good idea, and FWIW I'll be entering, as long as
> there's no room for cheating. Otherwise I am certain to lose unless I
> compromise my own integrity.
>
> -Mike
>

I don't think anybody will want to lose their integrity over this
competition :)
It'll be fun, and I'm glad you're entering!

Marcel

Hello Marcel,

I think everyone is overlooking the fact that any true rendition of a
tuning system with MIDI or sample synthesis shall be hampered due to
the notes bent not always being in perfect mathematical alignment with
12 equal tones per octave. A "defect" of a tuning could therefore bemissed simply because of a few cents deviation of the chosen
instrument's tuning from 12-ET or simply due to modulation in the
timbre of that instrument. The only way to avoid these things and to
assure fair review is to render the tunings with Sine waves.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 9, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
>
> Hi Oz!
>
> Marcel,
>
> Why don't you consider appointing a jury to decide which entry
> qualifies to win? As the competition-maker, you could select 5 trusted
> people from the Tuning and MakeMicroMusic lists and let them judge the
> entries. It could be done in 2 or 3 stages (semi-finals, finals,
> etc...) for elimination purposes. When such stakes are in question, I
> don't trust the voting system. I've never been one to favour democracy
> either. I share Mike's concerns about the competition turning into
> promoting a winner who can rig the system the best.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
>
> I will consider it if there are enough entries to give reason for
> this.
>
> I do want to say that I do not mean this competition for everybody
> to just send some random tuning and hope to perhaps win by surprise
> or just for the fun of entering.
> Please only submit a tuning if you truly belief that your tuning is
> better than my JI tuning on www.develde.net and better than 12tet.
> Please only serious entries.
>
> Marcel
>

I wouldn't go with sine waves, they bring their own problems. Anti-aliased
sawtooth or something to that effect would be best. Anti-aliased would be
key here, and I'd be happy to assist in the rendering if anyone needs it.

Agreed on that point though. Samples are often a few cents sharp/flat
themselves, not to mention that pitch bends are often very inaccurate.

Perhaps a Csound rendering or something in Supercollider would be best.

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> Hello Marcel,
>
> I think everyone is overlooking the fact that any true rendition of a
> tuning system with MIDI or sample synthesis shall be hampered due to the
> notes bent not always being in perfect mathematical alignment with 12 equal
> tones per octave. A "defect" of a tuning could therefore be missed simply
> because of a few cents deviation of the chosen instrument's tuning from
> 12-ET or simply due to modulation in the timbre of that instrument. The only
> way to avoid these things and to assure fair review is to render the tunings
> with Sine waves.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Jan 9, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Oz!
>
> Marcel,
>>
>> Why don't you consider appointing a jury to decide which entry
>> qualifies to win? As the competition-maker, you could select 5 trusted
>> people from the Tuning and MakeMicroMusic lists and let them judge the
>> entries. It could be done in 2 or 3 stages (semi-finals, finals,
>> etc...) for elimination purposes. When such stakes are in question, I
>> don't trust the voting system. I've never been one to favour democracy
>> either. I share Mike's concerns about the competition turning into
>> promoting a winner who can rig the system the best.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>>
>
> I will consider it if there are enough entries to give reason for this.
>
> I do want to say that I do not mean this competition for everybody to just
> send some random tuning and hope to perhaps win by surprise or just for the
> fun of entering.
> *Please only submit a tuning if you truly belief that your tuning is
> better than my JI tuning on www.develde.net and better than 12tet.*
> Please only serious entries.
>
> Marcel
>
>
>
>

> I think everyone is overlooking the fact that any true rendition of a
> tuning system with MIDI or sample synthesis shall be hampered due to the
> notes bent not always being in perfect mathematical alignment with 12 equal
> tones per octave. A "defect" of a tuning could therefore be missed simply
> because of a few cents deviation of the chosen instrument's tuning from
> 12-ET or simply due to modulation in the timbre of that instrument. The only
> way to avoid these things and to assure fair review is to render the tunings
> with Sine waves.
>
> Oz.
>

A few cents is a lot!
I don't think it'll deviate that much with pitch bend tuning. I use
Timidity++ (and use MTS when converting Scala sequence files which is even
more precise)
The timbre I use seems to be very stable to me.
But I may render the files in 2 timbres, the one on my site and with saw
waves.
Sine waves have no overtones and are not good for assessing tunings in my
opinion (and to my ears)

Marcel

It would be a mistake to blindly devote yourself to the accuracy of
Timidity++ given the fact that the latest pitch bend resolution was
found by Graham Breed and myself to be 0.39 cents and also given the
fact that you have not (to my knowledge) made pitch measurements like
I did to test how much certain sampled instruments deviate from a
mathematically ideal 12-tET. A few cents deviation is not in the least
surprising what with some instruments featuring stretched octaves and
vibratos and whatnot. Are you ready to rely on faith in this matter
and risk bracing objections of this nature after the competition
concludes when your goal was to ascertain the most correct tuning for
Drei Equali?

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 9, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
>
>
> I think everyone is overlooking the fact that any true rendition of
> a tuning system with MIDI or sample synthesis shall be hampered due
> to the notes bent not always being in perfect mathematical alignment> with 12 equal tones per octave. A "defect" of a tuning could
> therefore be missed simply because of a few cents deviation of the
> chosen instrument's tuning from 12-ET or simply due to modulation in
> the timbre of that instrument. The only way to avoid these things
> and to assure fair review is to render the tunings with Sine waves.
>
> Oz.
>
>
> A few cents is a lot!
> I don't think it'll deviate that much with pitch bend tuning. I use
> Timidity++ (and use MTS when converting Scala sequence files which
> is even more precise)
> The timbre I use seems to be very stable to me.
> But I may render the files in 2 timbres, the one on my site and with> saw waves.
> Sine waves have no overtones and are not good for assessing tunings
> in my opinion (and to my ears)
>
> Marcel
>
>
>

> It would be a mistake to blindly devote yourself to the accuracy of
> Timidity++ given the fact that the latest pitch bend resolution was found by
> Graham Breed and myself to be 0.39 cents

I'm aware of this.
This is for pitch bend tuned files.
0.39 cents should be acurate enough for people it seems to me. It's acurate
enough to me.

> and also given the fact that you have not (to my knowledge) made pitch
> measurements like I did to test how much certain sampled instruments deviate
> from a mathematically ideal 12-tET. A few cents deviation is not in the
> least surprising what with some instruments featuring stretched octaves and
> vibratos and whatnot.

I disable vibrato etc in the config file and there is no audible vibrato in
the sample itself.
The sound I used on the redering of the drei equali is a roland souncanvas
sound and my ear tells me it doesn't have octave stretching etc. It sounds
in tune to my ear.

> Are you ready to rely on faith in this matter and risk bracing objections
> of this nature after the competition concludes when your goal was to
> ascertain the most correct tuning for Drei Equali?

Well I'd love to also test the tuning :)
But don't know how.
Do you have things set up for easy testing? Would you be willing to test my
sound?
Or tell me how to test it myself?
One can never test to much :) Even though my ear sais the sound I'm using
now should do fine.
(perhaps even better than a sawwave, as I've noticed a perfect sawwave has
so many overtones this somehow slightly get in the way when trying to hear
the individual voices / melodies)

Marcel

And moreover, if you are so much dependent on overtones, an instrument
sample with inexact integer partials will certainly be a bias toward a
certain kind of tuning rather than any other. This will also hamper
your claims to your JI system being the best there is, unless of
course, you account for inharmonicities.

To avoid difficulties, you may perhaps create a stable new instrument
with mathematically exact multiple sine waves that are partials up to
the 19th overtone.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 9, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
>
>
> I think everyone is overlooking the fact that any true rendition of
> a tuning system with MIDI or sample synthesis shall be hampered due
> to the notes bent not always being in perfect mathematical alignment
> with 12 equal tones per octave. A "defect" of a tuning could
> therefore be missed simply because of a few cents deviation of the
> chosen instrument's tuning from 12-ET or simply due to modulation in
> the timbre of that instrument. The only way to avoid these things
> and to assure fair review is to render the tunings with Sine waves.
>
> Oz.
>
>
> A few cents is a lot!
> I don't think it'll deviate that much with pitch bend tuning. I use > Timidity++ (and use MTS when converting Scala sequence files which
> is even more precise)
> The timbre I use seems to be very stable to me.
> But I may render the files in 2 timbres, the one on my site and with
> saw waves.
> Sine waves have no overtones and are not good for assessing tunings
> in my opinion (and to my ears)
>
> Marcel
>
>
>

Which is exactly what I said. An anti-aliased saw wave. I was going to have
it go all the way up to the nyquist frequency though, instead of stopping at
19.

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>wrote:

>
>
> And moreover, if you are so much dependent on overtones, an instrument
> sample with inexact integer partials will certainly be a bias toward a
> certain kind of tuning rather than any other. This will also hamper your
> claims to your JI system being the best there is, unless of course, you
> account for inharmonicities.
>
> To avoid difficulties, you may perhaps create a stable new instrument with
> mathematically exact multiple sine waves that are partials up to the 19th
> overtone.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Jan 9, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think everyone is overlooking the fact that any true rendition of a
>> tuning system with MIDI or sample synthesis shall be hampered due to the
>> notes bent not always being in perfect mathematical alignment with 12 equal
>> tones per octave. A "defect" of a tuning could therefore be missed simply
>> because of a few cents deviation of the chosen instrument's tuning from
>> 12-ET or simply due to modulation in the timbre of that instrument. The only
>> way to avoid these things and to assure fair review is to render the tunings
>> with Sine waves.
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>
>
> A few cents is a lot!
> I don't think it'll deviate that much with pitch bend tuning. I use
> Timidity++ (and use MTS when converting Scala sequence files which is even
> more precise)
> The timbre I use seems to be very stable to me.
> But I may render the files in 2 timbres, the one on my site and with saw
> waves.
> Sine waves have no overtones and are not good for assessing tunings in my
> opinion (and to my ears)
>
> Marcel
>
>
>
>

> Which is exactly what I said. An anti-aliased saw wave. I was going to have
> it go all the way up to the nyquist frequency though, instead of stopping at
> 19.

Do you have a Csound or puredata instrument ready that plays pitch bend midi
files acurately?
Or know anybody that has this?
I'd love to try it out.

Marcel

> Well I'd love to also test the tuning :)
> But don't know how.
> Do you have things set up for easy testing? Would you be willing to test my sound?
> Or tell me how to test it myself?
> One can never test to much :) Even though my ear sais the sound I'm using now should do fine.
> (perhaps even better than a sawwave, as I've noticed a perfect sawwave has so many overtones this somehow slightly get in the way when trying to hear the individual voices / melodies)
>
> Marcel

I would never use a "perfect" sawwave. A "perfect" sawwave, one that
effectively is a sawtooth shape drawn out and quantized and sampled
digitally, will have aliasing, which will basically make it sound
awful. Overtones will reflect around the Nyquist frequency and come
back down into the audible range. You will hear a slight detuning or
"buzzing" happening there, which is hardly what anyone would want.

What does all of this mean? The "Nyquist" frequency is the highest
frequency that can be represented at a given sample rate - exactly
half that sample rate. So since you'll be working at 44100 Hz, the
highest frequency that can be represented is 22050 Hz. If you play a
1000 Hz sawtooth wave, you'll get harmonics at 2k, 3k, 4k, and do on.
When you get to 23k, you will be higher than the Nyquist frequency,
and aliasing will result. You'll get a 21100 tone.

In short: the overtones will warp around and sound distorted. Even at
the 23rd overtone this is audible. Very audible in fact. So the
excessive "buzzing" that you hear when you play a digital sawtooth
wave has nothing to do with too much overtone content, it has to do
with aliasing and jitter. A regular sawtooth wave sounds very pure.
I'd be happy to provide an example of it if you'd like.

But even so, it would be trivial to just make the rolloff more steep,
if you'd like. I'd be happy to assist with the rendering, as I said
before.

-Mike

An easy way to handle it would be to oversample. Instead of rendering the
files at 44100 Hz, render them 8 times that, and use whatever sound you
want. I don't know if Timidity can handle that, but I can imagine that
CSound would.

This will obviously still create aliasing, but if you oversample enough, it
will eventually become soft enough to be completely inaudible and just blend
right in with the noise floor. Don't belabor this point: there is a
threshhold of audibility, and if the aliasing/jitter is underneath that,
then it will be completely inaudible and never reach your brain. However,
44100 Hz is not a high enough sampling rate for the artefacts to be
inaudible -- they are very, very audible in fact.

You will HEAR the difference when the aliasing drops out. It isn't a subtle
thing we're talking about here, it's very real and apparent.

If you can come up with files that are oversampled to that much, then you
can send them to me (as wav files, please) and I will run them through a
brick-wall linear phase filter that will cut out everything above 22050 Hz.
That way I will be able to downsample back to 44.1 K and there will be no
audible artefacts.

But this might not apply so much if you don't want to use a sawtooth wave.
If you want to use something with a bit less harmonic content, then we won't
have this problem. But it had better have enough for us to hear beating if a
fifth is out of tune or something like that, which won't happen if we use
pure sine waves.

A lot of CSound renders that I have heard haven't been particularly harsh
with the aliasing, so the point might be moot. I haven't worked enough with
it to know what goes on under the hood.

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Which is exactly what I said. An anti-aliased saw wave. I was going to have
>> it go all the way up to the nyquist frequency though, instead of stopping at
>> 19.
>
>
> Do you have a Csound or puredata instrument ready that plays pitch bend
> midi files acurately?
> Or know anybody that has this?
> I'd love to try it out.
>
> Marcel
>
>

Thanks :)
But I knew all this.
Ment an anti aliased sawwave when I said perfect sawwave.
I have done things in Csound with band limited sawwaves but not from midi
files.
Also used a softsynth in cubase which has a band limited sawwave, but it had
poor pitch bend resolution.
Btw strange as it may seem, I prefered rendering a nyquist band limited saw
in csound at a high resolution (for instance 88.2 or 176.4 khz) and then
sample rate convert to 44.1khz with a good sample rate converter (like for
instance the one in adobe audition). I don't know why this is but it sounds
slightly better that way.

> I'd be happy to assist with the rendering, as I said
> before.
>
> -Mike

Well if you have a csound instrument ready that'll play pitch bend midi
files acurately I'd love to use it.
I can make a good csound band limited sawwave myself and hopefully adjust
the overtone strengths/slope so it has a good balance to hear both melody
and harmony clearly.

Thanks!
Marcel

> An easy way to handle it would be to oversample. Instead of rendering the
> files at 44100 Hz, render them 8 times that, and use whatever sound you
> want. I don't know if Timidity can handle that, but I can imagine that
> CSound would.
>
> This will obviously still create aliasing, but if you oversample enough, it
> will eventually become soft enough to be completely inaudible and just blend
> right in with the noise floor. Don't belabor this point: there is a
> threshhold of audibility, and if the aliasing/jitter is underneath that,
> then it will be completely inaudible and never reach your brain. However,
> 44100 Hz is not a high enough sampling rate for the artefacts to be
> inaudible -- they are very, very audible in fact.
>

I'd use way more than 8 times 44.1 if you allow aliasing.
The foldover creates low frequencies that become lower in volume in the
audible band the higher the sample frequency but they don't drop of very
fast.
But my example of rendering a band limited sawwave at high sampling
frequency, for instance sampling frequency 176.4khz, band limiting at 88.2
khz, and then sample rate convert to 44.1 will give a great sounding result.
Sounds analogue but better :)

You will HEAR the difference when the aliasing drops out. It isn't a subtle
> thing we're talking about here, it's very real and apparent.
>

I know, aliasing is anything but suble.

>
> If you can come up with files that are oversampled to that much, then you
> can send them to me (as wav files, please) and I will run them through a
> brick-wall linear phase filter that will cut out everything above 22050 Hz.
> That way I will be able to downsample back to 44.1 K and there will be no
> audible artefacts.
>
I know how to properly sample rate convert.
Please see: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ for a test of all sample rate
convertion software.

>
> But this might not apply so much if you don't want to use a sawtooth wave.
> If you want to use something with a bit less harmonic content, then we won't
> have this problem. But it had better have enough for us to hear beating if a
> fifth is out of tune or something like that, which won't happen if we use
> pure sine waves.
>
> A lot of CSound renders that I have heard haven't been particularly harsh
> with the aliasing, so the point might be moot. I haven't worked enough with
> it to know what goes on under the hood.
>

Well actually I'd really love to render with sawwaves (only adjust the
overtone strength slope a bit by ear to find the right compromise for melody
and harmony)
I've just been a bit lazy in writing something that'll play pitch bend midi
files correctly and acurately.
Anybody here on this list has such a thing or knows how to do it?
I think many more people on this list would love to have such a csound
instrument.

Marcel

That doesn't make much sense. If you're going to go up to 176.4, why would
you bandlimit it at that point? There is absolutely no possible way that you
would be able to hear any audible artefacts at that point. Nyquist at that
point would be around 88 Hz. So for a 1k wave, you'd start to hear aliasing
at the 88th harmonic. But then, even that would be cut out on the downsample
if filtered properly, you wouldn't even hear any aliasing until like the
352nd harmonic anyway.

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
> Thanks :)
> But I knew all this.
> Ment an anti aliased sawwave when I said perfect sawwave.
> I have done things in Csound with band limited sawwaves but not from midi
> files.
> Also used a softsynth in cubase which has a band limited sawwave, but it
> had poor pitch bend resolution.
> Btw strange as it may seem, I prefered rendering a nyquist band limited saw
> in csound at a high resolution (for instance 88.2 or 176.4 khz) and then
> sample rate convert to 44.1khz with a good sample rate converter (like for
> instance the one in adobe audition). I don't know why this is but it sounds
> slightly better that way.
>
>
>
>> I'd be happy to assist with the rendering, as I said
>> before.
>>
>> -Mike
>
>
> Well if you have a csound instrument ready that'll play pitch bend midi
> files acurately I'd love to use it.
> I can make a good csound band limited sawwave myself and hopefully adjust
> the overtone strengths/slope so it has a good balance to hear both melody
> and harmony clearly.
>
> Thanks!
> Marcel
>
>

> I'd use way more than 8 times 44.1 if you allow aliasing.
> The foldover creates low frequencies that become lower in volume in the audible band the higher the sample frequency but they don't drop of very fast.
> But my example of rendering a band limited sawwave at high sampling frequency, for instance sampling frequency 176.4khz, band limiting at 88.2 khz, and then sample rate convert to 44.1 will give a great sounding result. Sounds analogue but better :)

If you're going to bandlimit at 88.2... why not just bandlimit at
44.1? My oversampling idea was basically a quick and dirty way to get
around the issue of having to bandlimit anything.

> I know how to properly sample rate convert.
> Please see: http://src.infinitewave.ca/ for a test of all sample rate convertion software.

Alright, good to see you're up on this stuff. I prefer to manually do
it all in MATLAB, that way I know exactly what's happening :P

> Well actually I'd really love to render with sawwaves (only adjust the overtone strength slope a bit by ear to find the right compromise for melody and harmony)
> I've just been a bit lazy in writing something that'll play pitch bend midi files correctly and acurately.
> Anybody here on this list has such a thing or knows how to do it?
> I think many more people on this list would love to have such a csound instrument.
>
> Marcel

Perhaps you could use a MIDI -> OSC converter and use SuperCollider?

-Mike

> That doesn't make much sense. If you're going to go up to 176.4, why would
> you bandlimit it at that point? There is absolutely no possible way that you
> would be able to hear any audible artefacts at that point. Nyquist at that
> point would be around 88 Hz. So for a 1k wave, you'd start to hear aliasing
> at the 88th harmonic. But then, even that would be cut out on the downsample
> if filtered properly, you wouldn't even hear any aliasing until like the
> 352nd harmonic anyway.
>
> -Mike
>

I know it shouldn't make any sense vs bandlimiting at 22050 hertz.
But it sounds different and better :)
Try it!

Though band limiting at 88.2 when sample rate is 176.4 is still absolutely
nessecary.
Otherwise there's still aliasing. The wave will fold over above 88.2 and
this fold over will create frequencies below 22050 hertz.
Only the higher your sampling frequency is the lower the amplitude of the
aliasing distortion content below 22050 hertz.

Marcel

> Perhaps you could use a MIDI -> OSC converter and use SuperCollider?
>

Csound can play midi files directly, and there are midi to csound score
converters i think.
That'snot the problem.
I don't know how to write a csound instrument that'll acurately respond to
multiple midi channels and do all the pitchbends.
I almost never do anything in csound, and would hate to make a study out of
it just to do this one thing.

Marcel

> I know it shouldn't make any sense vs bandlimiting at 22050 hertz.
> But it sounds different and better :)
> Try it!
>
> Though band limiting at 88.2 when sample rate is 176.4 is still absolutely nessecary.
> Otherwise there's still aliasing. The wave will fold over above 88.2 and this fold over will create frequencies below 22050 hertz.
> Only the higher your sampling frequency is the lower the amplitude of the aliasing distortion content below 22050 hertz.
>
> Marcel

OK, Marcel, I'll message you offlist, I don't want to bombard everyone
with my geeking out over DSP here :P

-Mike

Neither do I, but I'm sure something like that must exist. I'm pretty sure
the OSC + SuperCollider route would work, I feel like OSC + Csound might be
fine as well.

I don't know much about csound though, my teachers at school hated it.
SuperCollider was the program we always used.

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Perhaps you could use a MIDI -> OSC converter and use SuperCollider?
>>
>
> Csound can play midi files directly, and there are midi to csound score
> converters i think.
> That'snot the problem.
> I don't know how to write a csound instrument that'll acurately respond to
> multiple midi channels and do all the pitchbends.
> I almost never do anything in csound, and would hate to make a study out of
> it just to do this one thing.
>
> Marcel
>
>

Dear Marcel,

On Jan 9, 2010, at 9:15 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
>
>
> It would be a mistake to blindly devote yourself to the accuracy of > Timidity++ given the fact that the latest pitch bend resolution was > found by Graham Breed and myself to be 0.39 cents
>
> I'm aware of this.
> This is for pitch bend tuned files.
> 0.39 cents should be acurate enough for people it seems to me. It's > acurate enough to me.
>
> and also given the fact that you have not (to my knowledge) made > pitch measurements like I did to test how much certain sampled > instruments deviate from a mathematically ideal 12-tET. A few cents > deviation is not in the least surprising what with some instruments > featuring stretched octaves and vibratos and whatnot.
>
> I disable vibrato etc in the config file and there is no audible > vibrato in the sample itself.
> The sound I used on the redering of the drei equali is a roland > souncanvas sound and my ear tells me it doesn't have octave > stretching etc. It sounds in tune to my ear.
>

In the past, we have witnessed many times in this group how unreliable the human ear can be in matters of ascertaining pitch and tuning.

If the partials feature inharmonicity, one cannot tell an overstretched octave simply by listening to beating.

> Are you ready to rely on faith in this matter and risk bracing > objections of this nature after the competition concludes when your > goal was to ascertain the most correct tuning for Drei Equali?
>
> Well I'd love to also test the tuning :)
> But don't know how.
> Do you have things set up for easy testing?

Unfortunately not.

> Would you be willing to test my sound?

Unfortunately, I have other things at hand to take care of at the moment. Can't promise.

> Or tell me how to test it myself?

Firstly, a pitch by pitch comparison using some reliable pitch measurement unit such as Peterson.

Secondly, a pitch analysis program such as Solo Explorer or Melodyne to determine frequencies used.

> One can never test to much :)

Possibly. But there should be a threshold of empricial satisfaction contrasted to pure skepticism.

> Even though my ear sais the sound I'm using now should do fine.

Can the human ear differentiate between 701 and 702 cent fifths in a pacing musical piece? I suspect not.

> (perhaps even better than a sawwave, as I've noticed a perfect > sawwave has so many overtones this somehow slightly get in the way > when trying to hear the individual voices / melodies)
>
> Marcel
>

Oz.

> Firstly, a pitch by pitch comparison using some reliable pitch
> measurement unit such as Peterson.
>
> Secondly, a pitch analysis program such as Solo Explorer or Melodyne
> to determine frequencies used.

Is Melodyne really that accurate? I would have thought a simple
spectrogram would have been more accurate than Melodyne for something
like this.

-Mike

Shouldn't there be at least some vibrato or other micromodulation? Otherwise tunings with JI chords will be disadvantaged because it's hard to segregate voices if chords are phase-locked and there's going to be random sounding changes in loudness with certain partials.

Kalle

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Which is exactly what I said. An anti-aliased saw wave. I was going to have
> it go all the way up to the nyquist frequency though, instead of stopping at
> 19.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > And moreover, if you are so much dependent on overtones, an instrument
> > sample with inexact integer partials will certainly be a bias toward a
> > certain kind of tuning rather than any other. This will also hamper your
> > claims to your JI system being the best there is, unless of course, you
> > account for inharmonicities.
> >
> > To avoid difficulties, you may perhaps create a stable new instrument with
> > mathematically exact multiple sine waves that are partials up to the 19th
> > overtone.
> >
> > Oz.
> >
> > ✩ ✩ ✩
> > www.ozanyarman.com
> >
> > On Jan 9, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think everyone is overlooking the fact that any true rendition of a
> >> tuning system with MIDI or sample synthesis shall be hampered due to the
> >> notes bent not always being in perfect mathematical alignment with 12 equal
> >> tones per octave. A "defect" of a tuning could therefore be missed simply
> >> because of a few cents deviation of the chosen instrument's tuning from
> >> 12-ET or simply due to modulation in the timbre of that instrument. The only
> >> way to avoid these things and to assure fair review is to render the tunings
> >> with Sine waves.
> >>
> >> Oz.
> >>
> >
> >
> > A few cents is a lot!
> > I don't think it'll deviate that much with pitch bend tuning. I use
> > Timidity++ (and use MTS when converting Scala sequence files which is even
> > more precise)
> > The timbre I use seems to be very stable to me.
> > But I may render the files in 2 timbres, the one on my site and with saw
> > waves.
> > Sine waves have no overtones and are not good for assessing tunings in my
> > opinion (and to my ears)
> >
> > Marcel
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi Kalle,

Shouldn't there be at least some vibrato or other micromodulation? Otherwise
> tunings with JI chords will be disadvantaged because it's hard to segregate
> voices if chords are phase-locked and there's going to be random sounding
> changes in loudness with certain partials.
>
> Kalle
>

Well yes you're right.
Unless with JI the sound starts at exactly thesame phase and is truly
perfectly in tune.
Then even timing becomes tuning dependant for new notes when there are held
notes.
This way there wouldn't be any phase cancelation / random changes in
loudness of certain partials dependent on phase.
I had this on my list of to do things to see wether in absolutely perfect
tuning, rhythm is somewhat controlled / restricted by tuning.

But I have a good real world solution to avoid having to do tuning as
perfectly as described above.
I'll make the resulting files stereo!
Seperate the voices like an actual trombone quartet.
Something like one voice 53 midi pan (left), one voice 96 midi pan (right),
one voice 32 mini pan (left), one voice 75 midi pan (right)
Won't do perfectly for either melody or harmony but should be a good
compromise.

Marcel

Fine by me. I'm not sure if "phase-locked" is the word you're going for here
though :P

If there is vibrato though, I think it should only start after a second or
two after the note starts. In fact, perhaps it would be best to make a
vibrato and a vibrato-less render, since if a note is held constant while
other notes are changing, the vibrato on the held note will wreak havoc on
the rest of it.

On the other hand, if the point of this is to gauge how "effective" a tuning
is in practice, shouldn't all of these things be involved to some extent?

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Kalle <kalleaho@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Shouldn't there be at least some vibrato or other micromodulation?
> Otherwise tunings with JI chords will be disadvantaged because it's hard to
> segregate voices if chords are phase-locked and there's going to be random
> sounding changes in loudness with certain partials.
>
> Kalle
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Mike Battaglia
> <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > Which is exactly what I said. An anti-aliased saw wave. I was going to
> have
> > it go all the way up to the nyquist frequency though, instead of stopping
> at
> > 19.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > And moreover, if you are so much dependent on overtones, an instrument
> > > sample with inexact integer partials will certainly be a bias toward a
> > > certain kind of tuning rather than any other. This will also hamper
> your
> > > claims to your JI system being the best there is, unless of course, you
> > > account for inharmonicities.
> > >
> > > To avoid difficulties, you may perhaps create a stable new instrument
> with
> > > mathematically exact multiple sine waves that are partials up to the
> 19th
> > > overtone.
> > >
> > > Oz.
> > >
> > > ✩ ✩ ✩
>
> > > www.ozanyarman.com
> > >
> > > On Jan 9, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think everyone is overlooking the fact that any true rendition of a
> > >> tuning system with MIDI or sample synthesis shall be hampered due to
> the
> > >> notes bent not always being in perfect mathematical alignment with 12
> equal
> > >> tones per octave. A "defect" of a tuning could therefore be missed
> simply
> > >> because of a few cents deviation of the chosen instrument's tuning
> from
> > >> 12-ET or simply due to modulation in the timbre of that instrument.
> The only
> > >> way to avoid these things and to assure fair review is to render the
> tunings
> > >> with Sine waves.
> > >>
> > >> Oz.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > A few cents is a lot!
> > > I don't think it'll deviate that much with pitch bend tuning. I use
> > > Timidity++ (and use MTS when converting Scala sequence files which is
> even
> > > more precise)
> > > The timbre I use seems to be very stable to me.
> > > But I may render the files in 2 timbres, the one on my site and with
> saw
> > > waves.
> > > Sine waves have no overtones and are not good for assessing tunings in
> my
> > > opinion (and to my ears)
> > >
> > > Marcel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

> A few cents is a lot!
> I don't think it'll deviate that much with pitch bend tuning. I use
> Timidity++ (and use MTS when converting Scala sequence files which
> is even more precise). The timbre I use seems to be very stable to
> me. But I may render the files in 2 timbres, the one on my site and
> with saw waves. Sine waves have no overtones and are not good for
> assessing tunings in my opinion (and to my ears)
>
> Marcel

Agree that sines are not desirable. Triangle waves are the
best simple waveforms for assessing tunings, and making music in
general, as they closely approximate the human voice.

If the goal is to have all submissions in the same timbre (and I
think that is a good goal), someone should volunteer to do the
renders. Someone other than Marcel would be ideal. MIDIs would
be submitted to them and they would produce the files with
randomized filenames. Then we can use a poll on this list to
determine the winner. Only members can vote, and each member
can vote only once. Yahoo may additionally allow each IP to
vote only once, I'm not sure. But at the very least, a cheater
would have to

1. Create a Yahoo account.
2. Join the tuning list (creates a record I can see).
3. Figure out which random filename is the file they
want to shill.
4. Repeat enough times to swing the vote.

So, Marcel, do we have your word you won't do this? :)

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> It would be a mistake to blindly devote yourself to the accuracy
> of Timidity++ given the fact that the latest pitch bend resolution
> was found by Graham Breed and myself to be 0.39 cents

That is perfectly adequate. Though I hereby nominate Mike to
do the renders, and he can choose whatever tool he likes.

> and also given the fact that you have not (to my knowledge) made
> pitch measurements like I did to test how much certain sampled
> instruments deviate from a mathematically ideal 12-tET.

Before the contest gets started, we can ask Mike to make a
render of the file in 12 and then interested parties can check
the accuracy.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> Agree that sines are not desirable. Triangle waves are the
> best simple waveforms for assessing tunings, and making music in
> general, as they closely approximate the human voice.

Now that is new to me, do you mean *the* triangle wave (odd harmonics only) or variable duty cycle (different up and down slopes) triangle waves? You get variable duty cycle triangle waves with plucked strings and guitarists indeed sometimes talk about vowel qualities of guitar timbres:

http://liam.musique.umontreal.ca/LIAM_Publications/Traube_C_ICASSP04.pdf

Kalle

Carl wrote:

> Agree that sines are not desirable. Triangle waves are the
> best simple waveforms for assessing tunings, and making music in
> general, as they closely approximate the human voice.

Don't know if both of us mean the same kind of "triangle" but a proper triangle period is symmetrical and therefore lacks even harmonics. If one wants to compare different retunings of the same piece, then probably a timbre lacking even harmonics won't give all the desired information.

Petr

> Agree that sines are not desirable. Triangle waves are the
> best simple waveforms for assessing tunings, and making music in
> general, as they closely approximate the human voice.

If we're going to go with a 1/N^2 rolloff, then I'd personally rather
go with parabolic waves. Sawtooth:Square::Parabolic:Triangle. Nothing
wrong with even order harmonics imo.

> If the goal is to have all submissions in the same timbre (and I
> think that is a good goal), someone should volunteer to do the
> renders. Someone other than Marcel would be ideal. MIDIs would
> be submitted to them and they would produce the files with
> randomized filenames. Then we can use a poll on this list to
> determine the winner. Only members can vote, and each member
> can vote only once. Yahoo may additionally allow each IP to
> vote only once, I'm not sure. But at the very least, a cheater
> would have to
>
> 1. Create a Yahoo account.
> 2. Join the tuning list (creates a record I can see).
> 3. Figure out which random filename is the file they
> want to shill.
> 4. Repeat enough times to swing the vote.
>
> So, Marcel, do we have your word you won't do this? :)
>
> -Carl

IP stuff can be easily worked around with Tor. What would really
eliminate any possible risk of cheating is if we only count votes as
valid for members whose join date is prior to Marcel's first message.
That way the only people who are able to cheat are those with prior
shill accounts.

This would be pretty easy to detect. Most of the people voting will be
tuning list regulars, so weird names would stick out.

I also think it would be best if we all used the same 12-tet rendering
of Drei Equali to begin with, and that the only thing differing
between the files would be the pitch bends. That is to say, if all of
the pitch bends were removed from all of the entries, the resulting
files should be completely identical. That would eliminate any chance
of someone leaving "identifying marks" in their pieces.

As for the rendering, if Marcel is alright with it I would be happy to
do it. I think I'll be able to get something simple going with
SuperCollider without much fuss.

And everyone keep in mind that we're probably going to get like 1
entry in straight JI and 6 entries in the same adaptive-JI scheme :)

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>
> > Agree that sines are not desirable. Triangle waves are the
> > best simple waveforms for assessing tunings, and making music in
> > general, as they closely approximate the human voice.
>
> Now that is new to me, do you mean *the* triangle wave (odd
> harmonics only) or variable duty cycle (different up and down
> slopes) triangle waves? You get variable duty cycle triangle
> waves with plucked strings and guitarists indeed sometimes talk
> about vowel qualities of guitar timbres:
>
> http://liam.musique.umontreal.ca/LIAM_Publications
> /Traube_C_ICASSP04.pdf
>
> Kalle

I meant among the basic waveforms only, triangle waves share
with human voice that their partials' amplitudes fall off as
the inverse square of the harmonic number, verses something
like a sawtooth where the falloff is linear.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Agree that sines are not desirable. Triangle waves are the
> > best simple waveforms for assessing tunings, and making music in
> > general, as they closely approximate the human voice.
>
> If we're going to go with a 1/N^2 rolloff, then I'd personally
> rather go with parabolic waves.
> Sawtooth:Square::Parabolic:Triangle. Nothing wrong with even
> order harmonics imo.

Sure, have at it. Any decent instrument sample should be good
enough... I only mentioned it in response to you guys talking
about basic waveforms.

> IP stuff can be easily worked around with Tor.

So what? Any online poll can be gamed. The hoops I outlined
should be more than enough regarding EUR$100.

> What would really eliminate any possible risk of cheating is
> if we only count votes as valid for members whose join date is
> prior to Marcel's first message.

Could easily be done, but shills known to Marcel could be
old timers.

> That way the only people who are able to cheat are those with
> prior shill accounts.
>
> This would be pretty easy to detect. Most of the people voting
> will be tuning list regulars, so weird names would stick out.

Yes, and they'll stick out if they're new, too.

> I also think it would be best if we all used the same 12-tet
> rendering of Drei Equali to begin with, and that the only thing
> differing between the files would be the pitch bends. That is
> to say, if all of the pitch bends were removed from all of the
> entries, the resulting files should be completely identical.

Does this mean you're in? You can set the specs for the
submited MIDIs however you like!

> That would eliminate any chance
> of someone leaving "identifying marks" in their pieces.

Maybe we should retune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY

instead. ;)

-Carl

If I'm given tuned midi files I could easily run them through GPO 4's choir.

Up to you guys. I'm not entering.

Chris

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Mike Battaglia
> <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Agree that sines are not desirable. Triangle waves are the
> > > best simple waveforms for assessing tunings, and making music in
> > > general, as they closely approximate the human voice.
> >
> > If we're going to go with a 1/N^2 rolloff, then I'd personally
> > rather go with parabolic waves.
> > Sawtooth:Square::Parabolic:Triangle. Nothing wrong with even
> > order harmonics imo.
>
> Sure, have at it. Any decent instrument sample should be good
> enough... I only mentioned it in response to you guys talking
> about basic waveforms.
>
>
> > IP stuff can be easily worked around with Tor.
>
> So what? Any online poll can be gamed. The hoops I outlined
> should be more than enough regarding EUR$100.
>
>
> > What would really eliminate any possible risk of cheating is
> > if we only count votes as valid for members whose join date is
> > prior to Marcel's first message.
>
> Could easily be done, but shills known to Marcel could be
> old timers.
>
>
> > That way the only people who are able to cheat are those with
> > prior shill accounts.
> >
> > This would be pretty easy to detect. Most of the people voting
> > will be tuning list regulars, so weird names would stick out.
>
> Yes, and they'll stick out if they're new, too.
>
>
> > I also think it would be best if we all used the same 12-tet
> > rendering of Drei Equali to begin with, and that the only thing
> > differing between the files would be the pitch bends. That is
> > to say, if all of the pitch bends were removed from all of the
> > entries, the resulting files should be completely identical.
>
> Does this mean you're in? You can set the specs for the
> submited MIDIs however you like!
>
>
> > That would eliminate any chance
> > of someone leaving "identifying marks" in their pieces.
>
> Maybe we should retune
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY
>
> instead. ;)
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle" <kalleaho@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > > Agree that sines are not desirable. Triangle waves are the
> > > best simple waveforms for assessing tunings, and making music in
> > > general, as they closely approximate the human voice.
> >
> > Now that is new to me, do you mean *the* triangle wave (odd
> > harmonics only) or variable duty cycle (different up and down
> > slopes) triangle waves? You get variable duty cycle triangle
> > waves with plucked strings and guitarists indeed sometimes talk
> > about vowel qualities of guitar timbres:
> >
> > http://liam.musique.umontreal.ca/LIAM_Publications
> > /Traube_C_ICASSP04.pdf
> >
> > Kalle
>
> I meant among the basic waveforms only,

well sometimes pulse waves and their integrated versions ie. variable triangle waves are included among basic waveforms.

> triangle waves share
> with human voice that their partials' amplitudes fall off as
> the inverse square of the harmonic number, verses something
> like a sawtooth where the falloff is linear.

is this true? Isn't the vocal fold buzz much brighter than parabolic wave (1/n^2 falloff all harmonics)?

Kalle

> is this true? Isn't the vocal fold buzz much brighter than
> parabolic wave (1/n^2 falloff all harmonics)?
>
> Kalle

Not according to my sources. I'd be interested if you can
find anything that says different... -Carl

> > This would be pretty easy to detect. Most of the people voting
> > will be tuning list regulars, so weird names would stick out.
>
> Yes, and they'll stick out if they're new, too.

Haha. I see what you did there.

> > I also think it would be best if we all used the same 12-tet
> > rendering of Drei Equali to begin with, and that the only thing
> > differing between the files would be the pitch bends. That is
> > to say, if all of the pitch bends were removed from all of the
> > entries, the resulting files should be completely identical.
>
> Does this mean you're in? You can set the specs for the
> submited MIDIs however you like!

Well ultimately it's up to Marcel, but I'd be happy to rig something
up in Supercollider or the like. It shouldn't be too difficult.

> > That would eliminate any chance
> > of someone leaving "identifying marks" in their pieces.
>
> Maybe we should retune
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY
>
> instead. ;)

Hahaha! We might see more success with
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjZRAvsZf1g though.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > is this true? Isn't the vocal fold buzz much brighter than
> > parabolic wave (1/n^2 falloff all harmonics)?
> >
> > Kalle
>
> Not according to my sources. I'd be interested if you can
> find anything that says different... -Carl

Did some reading and it seems that you are right!

Kalle

Hi Carl!

If the goal is to have all submissions in the same timbre (and I
> think that is a good goal), someone should volunteer to do the
> renders. Someone other than Marcel would be ideal.
>

I could be ok with this but I do want the final word on the files before
they go up for voting.
One other thing I found is very important for a fair comparison is the pitch
height of the total piece.
I think the mst natural comparison is made when the highest voice allways
starts at exactly thesame frequency in all of the tunings.
And that this frequency is the equal tempered F relevant to A=440 in this
case.
The files on my website are allmost like this.

> MIDIs would
> be submitted to them and they would produce the files with
> randomized filenames.
>

No, I'd like to allow everybody to give a personal description to their
tuning.
I don't believe in blind listening test in this case giving the best result
like I described a few posts above.
Author of the tuning beeing anonymous I'm fine with, though this is of
limited effectiveness since the tuning is often easily linked to a person.

> Then we can use a poll on this list to
> determine the winner. Only members can vote, and each member
> can vote only once. Yahoo may additionally allow each IP to
> vote only once, I'm not sure. But at the very least, a cheater
> would have to
>
> 1. Create a Yahoo account.
> 2. Join the tuning list (creates a record I can see).
> 3. Figure out which random filename is the file they
> want to shill.
> 4. Repeat enough times to swing the vote.
>
> So, Marcel, do we have your word you won't do this? :)
>
> -Carl
>

Hehe ahhh there goes my master plan haha :)

Marcel

> That is perfectly adequate. Though I hereby nominate Mike to
> do the renders, and he can choose whatever tool he likes.
>
>
> > and also given the fact that you have not (to my knowledge) made
> > pitch measurements like I did to test how much certain sampled
> > instruments deviate from a mathematically ideal 12-tET.
>
> Before the contest gets started, we can ask Mike to make a
> render of the file in 12 and then interested parties can check
> the accuracy.
>
> -Carl
>

Well I'd like to open a new thread on creating a "tuning list" csound
instrument (that accepts pitch bend midi files) together with anybody who's
interested.
Something we can all agree on giving a good sense of melodic pitch and
harmonic synchronicity etc.
Think this instrument could be of good use not only for this competition but
be helfull on this list for a long time.

Marcel

Hi Chris,

If I'm given tuned midi files I could easily run them through GPO 4's choir.
>
> Up to you guys. I'm not entering.
>
> Chris
>

Thanks for the offer, but I've noticed choir sounds are terrible for precise
listening to tunings.
Everything tuning sounds somewhat acceptable to me with choir sounds.
I have a bit of the opposite with the sound i'm using in the mp3's on my
website now where everything sounds terrible no matter how it's tuned lol
But atleast 12tet sounds more terrible that JI with those. With choir sounds
12tet sounds way to good to me and the "floating" isn't really noticable.

Marcel

Beethoven's _Drei Equale_ were composed expressly
for 4 solo trombones. That is the timbre that should
be used for this competition.

There seems to be a lot of debate/discussion concerning
keeping all other variables the same for each entry,
with only the tuning being different. But what about
dynamics, tempo, etc.? I had planned to submit some
entries which would have a lot of changes in dynamics
and tempo. If no-one else does this, then what happens
to the work i do on my files?

Also, to Marcel: how exactly does one submit an entry?
If i'm not supposed to do editing on dynamics and tempo,
then i have one that is ready now.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> If I'm given tuned midi files I could easily run them through GPO 4's choir.
> >
> > Up to you guys. I'm not entering.
> >
> > Chris
> >
>
> Thanks for the offer, but I've noticed choir sounds are terrible for precise
> listening to tunings.
> Everything tuning sounds somewhat acceptable to me with choir sounds.
> I have a bit of the opposite with the sound i'm using in the mp3's on my
> website now where everything sounds terrible no matter how it's tuned lol
> But atleast 12tet sounds more terrible that JI with those. With choir sounds
> 12tet sounds way to good to me and the "floating" isn't really noticable.
>
> Marcel
>

> Beethoven's _Drei Equale_ were composed expressly
> for 4 solo trombones. That is the timbre that should
> be used for this competition.
>

Well I agree that's the timbre that should be used for a performance of Drei
Equale.
But for this competition performance means nothing it's only about beeing
able to best compare the tuning.
The sound I used for the mp3's on my website does a fairly good job at
making clear the tuning, and it's a trombone sound, but I'm allmost sure
there can be made a better sound that will make the tuning even more clear.
Besides this, the sound I'm using now, even though it makes the tuning
pretty clear, sound horrible and no tuning I know will sound completely
"right", it's only that for instance 12tet sounds even worse than my JI
version lol

>
> There seems to be a lot of debate/discussion concerning
> keeping all other variables the same for each entry,
> with only the tuning being different. But what about
> dynamics, tempo, etc.? I had planned to submit some
> entries which would have a lot of changes in dynamics
> and tempo. If no-one else does this, then what happens
> to the work i do on my files?
>

For a fair comparison the tempo, dynamics etc should indeed be thesame.
Since this competition is not for the best performance but only for the
tuning and any differences besides the tuning will only make a fair
comparison more difficult. So yes it should be submitted in "stripped" midi
that is equal to the 12tet and only different in added pitch bend messages
and each voice on a seperate midi channel.

>
> Also, to Marcel: how exactly does one submit an entry?
> If i'm not supposed to do editing on dynamics and tempo,
> then i have one that is ready now.
>

Ok wow great! :)
You can submit it any way you like as long as I get it in a way that'll
allow me (or someone else, this is still beeing discussed i think) make mp3
files for a fair comparison.
You can send it to my email now if you like, I'd love to hear it!

Marcel

I wrote my choir reply before seeing the trombone note.

Interesting - trombones are NOT bound by 12 tet - and naturally the players
would tend towards whatever their ears/musical sense said was correct.

That being said I'll make the same offer with trombones

Marcel - it doesn't make sense to evaluate tuning systems artificially
because if a winner doesn't make this piece with the instruments intended an
improvement over 12 EDO then we are all wasting our time. Even if the most
clever and awesome tuning system were to win it would be without meaning if
it can't be applied in real life.

I'm no expert on timbres so I will just point to our friend Sethares as to
the effect timbre has upon perception of consonance. Since the tuning
differences we are contemplating here are relatively minor (not like say 12
edo vs 21 edo) the timbre may be *very* important in the perception.

With all due respect,

Chris

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> Beethoven's _Drei Equale_ were composed expressly
>> for 4 solo trombones. That is the timbre that should
>> be used for this competition.
>>
>
> Well I agree that's the timbre that should be used for a performance of
> Drei Equale.
> But for this competition performance means nothing it's only about beeing
> able to best compare the tuning.
> The sound I used for the mp3's on my website does a fairly good job at
> making clear the tuning, and it's a trombone sound, but I'm allmost sure
> there can be made a better sound that will make the tuning even more clear.
> Besides this, the sound I'm using now, even though it makes the tuning
> pretty clear, sound horrible and no tuning I know will sound completely
> "right", it's only that for instance 12tet sounds even worse than my JI
> version lol
>
>
>>
>> There seems to be a lot of debate/discussion concerning
>> keeping all other variables the same for each entry,
>> with only the tuning being different. But what about
>> dynamics, tempo, etc.? I had planned to submit some
>> entries which would have a lot of changes in dynamics
>> and tempo. If no-one else does this, then what happens
>> to the work i do on my files?
>>
>
> For a fair comparison the tempo, dynamics etc should indeed be thesame.
> Since this competition is not for the best performance but only for the
> tuning and any differences besides the tuning will only make a fair
> comparison more difficult. So yes it should be submitted in "stripped" midi
> that is equal to the 12tet and only different in added pitch bend messages
> and each voice on a seperate midi channel.
>
>>
>> Also, to Marcel: how exactly does one submit an entry?
>> If i'm not supposed to do editing on dynamics and tempo,
>> then i have one that is ready now.
>>
>
> Ok wow great! :)
> You can submit it any way you like as long as I get it in a way that'll
> allow me (or someone else, this is still beeing discussed i think) make mp3
> files for a fair comparison.
> You can send it to my email now if you like, I'd love to hear it!
>
> Marcel
>
>

OK, the problem with using a sample is that samples are often slightly out
of tune themselves. This adds an additional element of uncertainty to the
mix here, why not just use parabolic waves and get it over with?

-Mike

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>wrote:

>
>
> I wrote my choir reply before seeing the trombone note.
>
> Interesting - trombones are NOT bound by 12 tet - and naturally the players
> would tend towards whatever their ears/musical sense said was correct.
>
> That being said I'll make the same offer with trombones
>
> Marcel - it doesn't make sense to evaluate tuning systems artificially
> because if a winner doesn't make this piece with the instruments intended an
> improvement over 12 EDO then we are all wasting our time. Even if the most
> clever and awesome tuning system were to win it would be without meaning if
> it can't be applied in real life.
>
> I'm no expert on timbres so I will just point to our friend Sethares as to
> the effect timbre has upon perception of consonance. Since the tuning
> differences we are contemplating here are relatively minor (not like say 12
> edo vs 21 edo) the timbre may be *very* important in the perception.
>
> With all due respect,
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Beethoven's _Drei Equale_ were composed expressly
>>> for 4 solo trombones. That is the timbre that should
>>> be used for this competition.
>>>
>>
>> Well I agree that's the timbre that should be used for a performance of
>> Drei Equale.
>> But for this competition performance means nothing it's only about beeing
>> able to best compare the tuning.
>> The sound I used for the mp3's on my website does a fairly good job at
>> making clear the tuning, and it's a trombone sound, but I'm allmost sure
>> there can be made a better sound that will make the tuning even more clear.
>> Besides this, the sound I'm using now, even though it makes the tuning
>> pretty clear, sound horrible and no tuning I know will sound completely
>> "right", it's only that for instance 12tet sounds even worse than my JI
>> version lol
>>
>>
>>>
>>> There seems to be a lot of debate/discussion concerning
>>> keeping all other variables the same for each entry,
>>> with only the tuning being different. But what about
>>> dynamics, tempo, etc.? I had planned to submit some
>>> entries which would have a lot of changes in dynamics
>>> and tempo. If no-one else does this, then what happens
>>> to the work i do on my files?
>>>
>>
>> For a fair comparison the tempo, dynamics etc should indeed be thesame.
>> Since this competition is not for the best performance but only for the
>> tuning and any differences besides the tuning will only make a fair
>> comparison more difficult. So yes it should be submitted in "stripped" midi
>> that is equal to the 12tet and only different in added pitch bend messages
>> and each voice on a seperate midi channel.
>>
>>>
>>> Also, to Marcel: how exactly does one submit an entry?
>>> If i'm not supposed to do editing on dynamics and tempo,
>>> then i have one that is ready now.
>>>
>>
>> Ok wow great! :)
>> You can submit it any way you like as long as I get it in a way that'll
>> allow me (or someone else, this is still beeing discussed i think) make mp3
>> files for a fair comparison.
>> You can send it to my email now if you like, I'd love to hear it!
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>
>
>

> I wrote my choir reply before seeing the trombone note.
>
> Interesting - trombones are NOT bound by 12 tet - and naturally the players
> would tend towards whatever their ears/musical sense said was correct.
>
> That being said I'll make the same offer with trombones
>
> Marcel - it doesn't make sense to evaluate tuning systems artificially
> because if a winner doesn't make this piece with the instruments intended an
> improvement over 12 EDO then we are all wasting our time. Even if the most
> clever and awesome tuning system were to win it would be without meaning if
> it can't be applied in real life.
>
> I'm no expert on timbres so I will just point to our friend Sethares as to
> the effect timbre has upon perception of consonance. Since the tuning
> differences we are contemplating here are relatively minor (not like say 12
> edo vs 21 edo) the timbre may be *very* important in the perception.
>
> With all due respect,
>
> Chris
>

Yes trombones are not bound by 12tet which I'm very happy with as then
nobody can say this piece was "intended" for 12tet :-D

But I'm not in favour or the argument that tuning is dependent on timbre.
And don't really wish to get into this argument.
If anybody else thinks so that's fine with me, I don't think it myself and
will not change this.
Besides, in this case, trombones, especially tenor trombone and alto
trombone have a very harmonic overtone structure.
Just like for instance a sawwave, just different amplitudes etc.

Marcel

Why not use ZynAddSubFX to produce a trombone-like vibrato-free sound
for the purposes of this competition? ZASFX is very precise in tuning
increments. Graham knows all about it.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 11, 2010, at 6:40 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

>
>
> OK, the problem with using a sample is that samples are often
> slightly out of tune themselves. This adds an additional element of
> uncertainty to the mix here, why not just use parabolic waves and
> get it over with?
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...
> > wrote:
>
> I wrote my choir reply before seeing the trombone note.
>
> Interesting - trombones are NOT bound by 12 tet - and naturally the
> players would tend towards whatever their ears/musical sense said> was correct.
>
> That being said I'll make the same offer with trombones
>
> Marcel - it doesn't make sense to evaluate tuning systems
> artificially because if a winner doesn't make this piece with the
> instruments intended an improvement over 12 EDO then we are all
> wasting our time. Even if the most clever and awesome tuning system
> were to win it would be without meaning if it can't be applied in
> real life.
>
> I'm no expert on timbres so I will just point to our friend
> Sethares as to the effect timbre has upon perception of consonance.
> Since the tuning differences we are contemplating here are
> relatively minor (not like say 12 edo vs 21 edo) the timbre may be
> *very* important in the perception.
>
> With all due respect,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Marcel de Velde
> <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Beethoven's _Drei Equale_ were composed expressly
> for 4 solo trombones. That is the timbre that should
> be used for this competition.
>
>
> Well I agree that's the timbre that should be used for a performance
> of Drei Equale.
> But for this competition performance means nothing it's only about
> beeing able to best compare the tuning.
> The sound I used for the mp3's on my website does a fairly good job
> at making clear the tuning, and it's a trombone sound, but I'm
> allmost sure there can be made a better sound that will make the
> tuning even more clear. Besides this, the sound I'm using now, even
> though it makes the tuning pretty clear, sound horrible and no
> tuning I know will sound completely "right", it's only that for
> instance 12tet sounds even worse than my JI version lol
>
>
> There seems to be a lot of debate/discussion concerning
> keeping all other variables the same for each entry,
> with only the tuning being different. But what about
> dynamics, tempo, etc.? I had planned to submit some
> entries which would have a lot of changes in dynamics
> and tempo. If no-one else does this, then what happens
> to the work i do on my files?
>
>
> For a fair comparison the tempo, dynamics etc should indeed be
> thesame.
> Since this competition is not for the best performance but only for
> the tuning and any differences besides the tuning will only make a
> fair comparison more difficult. So yes it should be submitted in
> "stripped" midi that is equal to the 12tet and only different in
> added pitch bend messages and each voice on a seperate midi channel.
>
> Also, to Marcel: how exactly does one submit an entry?
> If i'm not supposed to do editing on dynamics and tempo,
> then i have one that is ready now.
>
>
> Ok wow great! :)
> You can submit it any way you like as long as I get it in a way
> that'll allow me (or someone else, this is still beeing discussed i
> think) make mp3 files for a fair comparison.
> You can send it to my email now if you like, I'd love to hear it!
>
> Marcel
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Mike,

OK, the problem with using a sample is that samples are often slightly out
> of tune themselves. This adds an additional element of uncertainty to the
> mix here, why not just use parabolic waves and get it over with?

Yes agreed, though the waveform isn't the problem for me.
Once the Csound instrument is ready I'll make a bunch of different waveforms
and come back on list to ask who favours which one etc.
The waveforms are easy to make in csound and fun to experiment with and well
documented etc.
It's the writing an instrument that accepts a midi file, and then uses the
pitch bends correctly etc that I have no idea yet how to write.
But this is now all perhaps better discussed in the other thread I started
about the csound instrument.
Otherwise this thread will end up beeing 50 messages or more on instrument
choice.
Also if past has learnt me anything it's that people don't like to get a lot
of messages in a day and I think this thread has allready done that :)
Perhaps better to discuss some things offlist?

Marcel

Hi Oz,

Why not use ZynAddSubFX to produce a trombone-like vibrato-free sound for
> the purposes of this competition? ZASFX is very precise in tuning
> increments. Graham knows all about it.
>
> Oz.
>

Well.. yes that would be the easyest option indeed :)
I'll go check out if I can get a satisfactory sound for everybody out of it.
You may have just saved me a lot of work! :)
It's pitch bend resolution is really that good?

Marcel

hi marcel,

> For a fair comparison the tempo, dynamics etc should
> indeed be thesame. Since this competition is not for
> the best performance but only for the tuning and any
> differences besides the tuning will only make a fair
> comparison more difficult. So yes it should be submitted
> in "stripped" midi that is equal to the 12tet and only
> different in added pitch bend messages and each voice
> on a seperate midi channel.

ok, good -- then i do have one that is ready.

i'm using my own software, Tonescape, to create
the piece in various tunings. then Tonescape can
export each one to a MIDI file which uses a 12-edo basis
and then pitch-bend on each note.

or if desired, i can also export it to a csound file,
if there is going to be an appropriate csound instrument
available.

but don't get too excited about it ... this one was
only for the purpose of getting the notes entered.
i'm only willing to submit it because it's finished,
not because i think it has a chance of winning.

the second one is the one which will have a more
special tuning.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
Tonescape microtonal music software

> ok, good -- then i do have one that is ready.
>
> i'm using my own software, Tonescape, to create
> the piece in various tunings. then Tonescape can
> export each one to a MIDI file which uses a 12-edo basis
> and then pitch-bend on each note.
>

Ok that'll work great.

The only thing I may want to also do is perhaps do a rendering of each of
the 4 voices individually.
Are each of your voices on different midi channels? If so I can easily
handle that.
If not then I may ask you to send each voice in a seperate midi file aswell
for your real entries.
Depends on if the final instrument used will give a clear enough hearing of
the individual voices inside the harmonies.

>
> or if desired, i can also export it to a csound file,
> if there is going to be an appropriate csound instrument
> available.
>

Well I don't know yet :)

>
> but don't get too excited about it ... this one was
> only for the purpose of getting the notes entered.
> i'm only willing to submit it because it's finished,
> not because i think it has a chance of winning.
>
> the second one is the one which will have a more
> special tuning.
>

Ok. I won't see this one as an entry to the competition then.
As I'd like it to be serious entries only where the person who enters the
tuning things it has a chance of winning.
Otherwise there'll be too many entries and people will have less listening
attention for the real entries I'm afraid.
Though I'm still curious to hear the tuning :)
And looking forward to the second one!

Thanks,
Marcel

/tuning/topicId_85077.html#85150

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 11, 2010, at 6:50 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
>
> Hi Oz,
>
> Why not use ZynAddSubFX to produce a trombone-like vibrato-free
> sound for the purposes of this competition? ZASFX is very precise in
> tuning increments. Graham knows all about it.
>
> Oz.
>
> Well.. yes that would be the easyest option indeed :)
> I'll go check out if I can get a satisfactory sound for everybody
> out of it.
> You may have just saved me a lot of work! :)
> It's pitch bend resolution is really that good?
>
> Marcel
>

Thanks Oz!

/tuning/topicId_85077.html#85150

But the reported accuracy is for loaded Scala .scl files.
Not MIDI pitch bends!

For this project I'm not going to ask everybody to submit a MIDI file
without pitchbends and a .scl file to match the MIDI file.
Not only because many people simply do not work this way and would find it
difficult and a lot of work to suply it in this way, but also because some
entries may very well use over a 128 different pitches in the composition in
which case the .scl aproach won't even be possible.

Just about everybody has however found a way to put their tuning method in a
MIDI file with pitch bends, and this is the type of file I can accept.
I can use pitch bend tuning with zynaddsubfx aswell, simply run 4 instances
and direct each midi pitch bent voice to an instance of synaddsubfx in for
instance cubase and then record and mix the outputs.
However, if I understand correctly, the pitch bend accuracy of zynaddsubfx
is currently untested. And may well be as bad as all the other VST's out
there.

Marcel

Marcel, check the last two paragraphs in this link:

/tuning/topicId_85077.html#85146

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 11, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
>
> Thanks Oz!
>
> /tuning/topicId_85077.html#85150
>
> But the reported accuracy is for loaded Scala .scl files.
> Not MIDI pitch bends!
>
> For this project I'm not going to ask everybody to submit a MIDI
> file without pitchbends and a .scl file to match the MIDI file.
> Not only because many people simply do not work this way and would
> find it difficult and a lot of work to suply it in this way, but
> also because some entries may very well use over a 128 different
> pitches in the composition in which case the .scl aproach won't even
> be possible.
>
> Just about everybody has however found a way to put their tuning
> method in a MIDI file with pitch bends, and this is the type of file
> I can accept.
> I can use pitch bend tuning with zynaddsubfx aswell, simply run 4
> instances and direct each midi pitch bent voice to an instance of
> synaddsubfx in for instance cubase and then record and mix the
> outputs.
> However, if I understand correctly, the pitch bend accuracy of
> zynaddsubfx is currently untested. And may well be as bad as all the
> other VST's out there.
>
> Marcel
>
>
> __._,_.

> Marcel, check the last two paragraphs in this link:
>
> /tuning/topicId_85077.html#85146
>
> Oz.
>

Thank you again Oz! :)

And indeed zynaddfuxfx is by faaar the greatest way I've ever found to
render pitch bend midi files!!
I downloaded the newest VSThost software (free) at:
http://www.hermannseib.com/english/vsthost.htm
And the ZynAddSubFX VST version at:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=268277

Now the great thing is that the newest VSThost has a built in midi player.
And it plays pitch bend midi files correctly.
And ZynAddSubFX can be set to receive in mono on multiple midi channels.
It's the easyest microtonal midi pitch bend file setup ever! A true dream :)
And all free and everybody can use it.
Highly recomended!

The only bad thing is that ZynAddSubFX must have the worst presets ever for
assessing pitch precision etc.
All the presets are chorussy etc.
But since it's a great full featured synth (both an additive synth and a
subtractive synth) good sounds are easily made :)

I'm off to make good sounds! :)
Seems like there's no need for csound anymore, and that this little setup
should be on every microtonalsts computer.
Ohyeah I forgot to mention that synaddsubfx also supports Scala .scl files
:)

Thanks again Oz!!

Marcel

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> One other thing I found is very important for a fair comparison
> is the pitch height of the total piece.
> I think the mst natural comparison is made when the highest
> voice allways starts at exactly thesame frequency in all of the
> tunings. And that this frequency is the equal tempered F
> relevant to A=440 in this case.
> The files on my website are allmost like this.

Yes, very good point. Mike is more than capable of doing
something like this now that you've specified it. Right Mike?

> > MIDIs would
> > be submitted to them and they would produce the files with
> > randomized filenames.
>
> No, I'd like to allow everybody to give a personal description
> to their tuning. I don't believe in blind listening test in
> this case giving the best result like I described a few
> posts above.

I strongly disagree. Not only do randomized files protect
against shilling, they also protect against listener bias.
Descriptions can be given, but should not be tied to particular
files until after the ballot has closed.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <joemonz@...> wrote:
>
> Beethoven's _Drei Equale_ were composed expressly
> for 4 solo trombones. That is the timbre that should
> be used for this competition.

I would agree, except trombone quartets are expensive
and can't generally perform arbitrary tunings. :)
Also, MIDI files generally don't have the ability to
express the different kinds of slides possible on a
trombone. So I think the question is really, what timbre
works best given the fact that it's going to be
synthesized?
But we shouldn't allow ourselves to get bogged down
arguing about the timbre, since standardization across
files is the most important thing, as long as the timbre
is ballpark appropriate.

>There seems to be a lot of debate/discussion concerning
>keeping all other variables the same for each entry,
>with only the tuning being different. But what about
>dynamics, tempo, etc.? I had planned to submit some
>entries which would have a lot of changes in dynamics
>and tempo. If no-one else does this, then what happens
>to the work i do on my files?

Perhaps there could be an initial phase where contestants
could submit MIDIs in 12-ET, and we could vote on which
interpretation was best, and then that file would be the
standard that would be retuned.

-Carl

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > One other thing I found is very important for a fair comparison
> > is the pitch height of the total piece.
> > I think the mst natural comparison is made when the highest
> > voice allways starts at exactly thesame frequency in all of the
> > tunings. And that this frequency is the equal tempered F
> > relevant to A=440 in this case.
> > The files on my website are allmost like this.
>
> Yes, very good point. Mike is more than capable of doing
> something like this now that you've specified it. Right Mike?

Sure am. And if I don't end up doing it, I stand by that we should
have a base MIDI file that we all retune simply by adding pitch bends
to. The additional constraint that F should be set to 440 * 2^(8/12)
is fine by me.

> > > MIDIs would
> > > be submitted to them and they would produce the files with
> > > randomized filenames.
> >
> > No, I'd like to allow everybody to give a personal description
> > to their tuning. I don't believe in blind listening test in
> > this case giving the best result like I described a few
> > posts above.
>
> I strongly disagree. Not only do randomized files protect
> against shilling, they also protect against listener bias.
> Descriptions can be given, but should not be tied to particular
> files until after the ballot has closed.

Indeed. Listener bias is important. At the very least we should have
the names of the people submitting the entries withheld until the end.

I fully expect to see 1 entry in 5-limit JI and the rest in
adaptive-JI... so I don't really care too much if they're labeled as
such. 5-limit JI, adaptive JI algorithm #1, adaptive JI algorithm #2,
etc.

That being said, there's not going to be any real question about which
one is the 5-limit JI tuning, since we'll all hear it from the outset.
So if Marcel insists on having the tuning disclosed, so be it.

As for names, I don't see how that would do anything good.

-Mike

Hi Carl,

I strongly disagree. Not only do randomized files protect
> against shilling, they also protect against listener bias.
> Descriptions can be given, but should not be tied to particular
> files until after the ballot has closed.
>

As I explained above, I don't see it this way.

First of all I trust the members of this list to vote for the tuning they
think sounds best.
I'm even going to ask the people who submit an entry to vote for what they
think sounds best even if it's not their own entry, and think probably all
will actually do so. I know I will.

Secondly, blind files won't protect from any cheating at all.
For all the tunings that have been submitted so far, 2 just intonation, 1
meantone, 1 equal tempered, 1 pythagorean, it's apparent immediately which
one is which in a blind test. People will have no trouble picking out their
own entry, and will guess the tuning method for the files which are not
their own.

Thridly I think the best decision is made with informed ears. Ears that know
what they're listening to / what to listen for.
Tuning is a half brain half ear thing to me.
To listen blindly could be too much to ask especially in a competition like
this and especially if there are many entries.
And to give a specific example:
When there are for instance adaptive JI entries, some people may not
notice/hear the adaptive "comma" shifts in the melodies. Yet had they known
they would listen more carefully for this, and once hearing it they would
perhaps see them as unacceptable (they are for me)
Now if they learn this after the voting only, then they will be left with a
feeling that they voted for the wrong entry.
More examples like this can be made.

Overall, I think I've made this clear before, I personally favour an open
transparent well informed vote.
I have nothing to hide, my JI tuning is even online in ratios etc, people
can even use my tuning and try to improve upon it and then win the
competition.
If someone else has something to hide I will try to uncover it and make it
open / known.
Furthermore I'm fully ok with people posting their ideas on the tunings of
the entries, not only after the voting has ended, but also while voting is
still going on.
I think this type of competition that is open and transparent and
wellinformed has a bigger power to convince after the vote.
I'm fully for an as fair as possible vote, and think this way of doing it
makes it even more fair.
I agree that this open tpe of voting can turn into a popularity contest or
cheating etc in other places.
But this is a tuning list only competition now, and we're all after thesame
things. It's a competition under friends, and I think people will vote and
behave in a fair way. (and should someone accidently not behave well, we can
call his/her attention to it still)

Anyhow this is how I see this competition as best ran.
It's my competition :) I'm paying the bill, and stand equal to others to
winning (winning back in my case) the €100.-, and this is the way I like to
do it.

Btw if anybody else would like to make this competition even more
interesting and put money in it aswell that would be great offcourse :)
Let me know!

Marcel

Mike wrote:

> That being said, there's not going to be any real question about
> which one is the 5-limit JI tuning, since we'll all hear it from
> the outset.

I don't know why you say this. We might get all sorts of
tunings, and since this piece doesn't have any overt comma
pumps, the 5-limit JI might not stand out.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> I strongly disagree. Not only do randomized files protect
> > against shilling, they also protect against listener bias.
> > Descriptions can be given, but should not be tied to particular
> > files until after the ballot has closed.
>
> As I explained above, I don't see it this way.
>
> First of all I trust the members of this list to vote for the
> tuning they think sounds best.
> I'm even going to ask the people who submit an entry to vote
> for what they think sounds best even if it's not their own entry,
> and think probably all will actually do so. I know I will.

But I don't trust them to know what they think sounds best.
So you can count me out if filenames aren't randomized.

-Carl

> I don't know why you say this. We might get all sorts of
> tunings, and since this piece doesn't have any overt comma
> pumps, the 5-limit JI might not stand out.
>
> -Carl
>

My 5-limit JI tuning will stand out easily :)
I also have Peters 5-limit JI tuning which will also stand out easily.
I don't think anybody will have a hard time distinguishing the 2. Especially
not on the tuning list.

Marcel

> But I don't trust them to know what they think sounds best.
> So you can count me out if filenames aren't randomized.
>
> -Carl
>

That's kind of a hard standpoint.
You really think the way I described above will not give a fair outcome???

You can make an anonymous submission if that's what you're worried about.
You can make it without even giving a description to your tuning etc.
The only thing I'd do is if I hear comma shifts I may discuss this on list.
Like other people can do.
People could guess at what kind of a tuning it is etc.
Why is this wrong?

If you were thinking about an entry, I'd be really sorry to see you not
entering over this.

Marcel

Btw I have the base 12tet MIDI file for the competition ready at my website.
www.develde.net
This one includes the panning to make individual voices easyer to hear
(which works wunderfully well)

Also updated the JI and Pythagorean MIDI files, the JI scala .seq file, and
all the Audio renderings mp3's.
They now all have their highest voice start on exactly thesame frequency for
a fair comparison. (F = 349.2282 Hertz).

Ideally entries would be submitted in pitch bend MIDI files which are
exactly like the 12tet midi file, each voice staying on it's own MIDI
channel like in the 12tet MIDI file, only with added pitch bend messages
(and the first note of the highest voice F = 349.2282 Hertz).
Though if it's difficult for you to submit your entry in this way please
contact me by email or in this thread and we'll discuss what else I can
accept and still render it in the same way for a fair comparison to the
other entries.

Marcel
www.develde.net

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > But I don't trust them to know what they think sounds best.
> > So you can count me out if filenames aren't randomized.
>
> That's kind of a hard standpoint.
> You really think the way I described above will not give a fair
> outcome???
>
> You can make an anonymous submission if that's what you're
> worried about.

Randomized trials are standard for these kinds of experiments.
The results can't be taken seriously otherwise. I wasn't
planning on submitting (I already gave a tuning for the opening).

-Carl

> Randomized trials are standard for these kinds of experiments.
> The results can't be taken seriously otherwise.
>

Can't be taken seriously otherwise?
No I don't see this at all.
Can you give a specific example how you think this voting would go wrong
which will lead to results that can't be taken seriously?
I think that the way I described it a few posts back will do the oposite and
that the results will be more valid.

> I wasn't
> planning on submitting (I already gave a tuning for the opening).
>
> -Carl
>

Ok.
Your tuning of the beginning is the same as Petr's beginning so this will
still be in the competition :)

Marcel

Hi Carl,

> Randomized trials are standard for these kinds of experiments.
> The results can't be taken seriously otherwise.

Ok I've been thinking a bit more about this.
And yes you're right under certain circumstances.
For instance when auditioning audiophile equipment where the differences are
very small.

I don't think this competition can be directly compared to such a listening
test as there are many factors in this competition and I think in this case
an informed ear is a better ear.
And mostly the differences between files are big enough to not warrant a
blind listening test.
Even with 2 almost equal JI interpretation where just a few notes differ by
a syntonic comma, I think it's best that the voters are informed of this
difference and know at which locations these 2 JI interpretations differ so
they can focus their attention to it better.
But, I can also see that in for instance 2 meantone tunings that differ only
very slightly, that a blind test may be more at place here. As too much
information on them may indeed give a subconscious preference for one or the
other which isn't based on one sounding better or because of better
knowledge of what to listen for.
So it's a bit of a dilemma.
Though if this competition were to be blind, then this would also mean
people can't discuss any of the competition entries while voting is still
possible etc.
Now I don't see that happening.
In the end I see the non blind way (where the author of the tuning decides
wether he wants to be anonymous etc) as still the best way to go overall I
think.
But I really really dislike the fact that you allready see this as making
the results worthless.
This for me is like I'm trying to do good here as best as I can, yet the
trouble allready starts.
I hope you can give it a rethink. But if you truly feel this way, and if
enough (what's enough?) other people feel the same then this will probably
be enough reason in itself to go with a blind test afterall, even though I
don't feel it'll be as good a competition as otherwise.
But for now, again, non blind.

Marcel

The idea is that you are trying to draw attention to the negative and
positive aspects of the tunings beforehand. If you are so confident that
your system really is superior, then everyone should notice this from the
outset, correct?

Whether these aspects really ARE "negative" or "positive" is precisely what
is up for debate. 1/4 comma shifts of 5 cents or so might seem bad to you in
theory, but can anyone really distinguish them in practice?

For you to bring attention to it defeats the purpose of the whole thing.

It is your contest and I'll be entering no matter what, but fwiw you can't
really claim that your system is "superior" if you color the examples
beforehand by drawing attention to negative features of everyone else's
tuning.

-Mike

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...m>wrote:

>
>
> Hi Carl,
>
>
>
>> Randomized trials are standard for these kinds of experiments.
>> The results can't be taken seriously otherwise.
>
>
> Ok I've been thinking a bit more about this.
> And yes you're right under certain circumstances.
> For instance when auditioning audiophile equipment where the differences
> are very small.
>
> I don't think this competition can be directly compared to such a listening
> test as there are many factors in this competition and I think in this case
> an informed ear is a better ear.
> And mostly the differences between files are big enough to not warrant a
> blind listening test.
> Even with 2 almost equal JI interpretation where just a few notes differ by
> a syntonic comma, I think it's best that the voters are informed of this
> difference and know at which locations these 2 JI interpretations differ so
> they can focus their attention to it better.
> But, I can also see that in for instance 2 meantone tunings that differ
> only very slightly, that a blind test may be more at place here. As too much
> information on them may indeed give a subconscious preference for one or the
> other which isn't based on one sounding better or because of better
> knowledge of what to listen for.
> So it's a bit of a dilemma.
> Though if this competition were to be blind, then this would also mean
> people can't discuss any of the competition entries while voting is still
> possible etc.
> Now I don't see that happening.
> In the end I see the non blind way (where the author of the tuning decides
> wether he wants to be anonymous etc) as still the best way to go overall I
> think.
> But I really really dislike the fact that you allready see this as making
> the results worthless.
> This for me is like I'm trying to do good here as best as I can, yet the
> trouble allready starts.
> I hope you can give it a rethink. But if you truly feel this way, and if
> enough (what's enough?) other people feel the same then this will probably
> be enough reason in itself to go with a blind test afterall, even though I
> don't feel it'll be as good a competition as otherwise.
> But for now, again, non blind.
>
> Marcel
>
>

BTW Marcel you say you've gotten 6 or 7 entries already?

What is the MIDI file that we are all going to retune? Did I miss it? I'd
like to get started on my entry.

-Mike

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>wrote:

> The idea is that you are trying to draw attention to the negative and
> positive aspects of the tunings beforehand. If you are so confident that
> your system really is superior, then everyone should notice this from the
> outset, correct?
>
> Whether these aspects really ARE "negative" or "positive" is precisely what
> is up for debate. 1/4 comma shifts of 5 cents or so might seem bad to you in
> theory, but can anyone really distinguish them in practice?
>
> For you to bring attention to it defeats the purpose of the whole thing.
>
> It is your contest and I'll be entering no matter what, but fwiw you can't
> really claim that your system is "superior" if you color the examples
> beforehand by drawing attention to negative features of everyone else's
> tuning.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>>
>>
>>> Randomized trials are standard for these kinds of experiments.
>>> The results can't be taken seriously otherwise.
>>
>>
>> Ok I've been thinking a bit more about this.
>> And yes you're right under certain circumstances.
>> For instance when auditioning audiophile equipment where the differences
>> are very small.
>>
>> I don't think this competition can be directly compared to such a
>> listening test as there are many factors in this competition and I think in
>> this case an informed ear is a better ear.
>> And mostly the differences between files are big enough to not warrant a
>> blind listening test.
>> Even with 2 almost equal JI interpretation where just a few notes differ
>> by a syntonic comma, I think it's best that the voters are informed of this
>> difference and know at which locations these 2 JI interpretations differ so
>> they can focus their attention to it better.
>> But, I can also see that in for instance 2 meantone tunings that differ
>> only very slightly, that a blind test may be more at place here. As too much
>> information on them may indeed give a subconscious preference for one or the
>> other which isn't based on one sounding better or because of better
>> knowledge of what to listen for.
>> So it's a bit of a dilemma.
>> Though if this competition were to be blind, then this would also mean
>> people can't discuss any of the competition entries while voting is still
>> possible etc.
>> Now I don't see that happening.
>> In the end I see the non blind way (where the author of the tuning decides
>> wether he wants to be anonymous etc) as still the best way to go overall I
>> think.
>> But I really really dislike the fact that you allready see this as making
>> the results worthless.
>> This for me is like I'm trying to do good here as best as I can, yet the
>> trouble allready starts.
>> I hope you can give it a rethink. But if you truly feel this way, and if
>> enough (what's enough?) other people feel the same then this will probably
>> be enough reason in itself to go with a blind test afterall, even though I
>> don't feel it'll be as good a competition as otherwise.
>> But for now, again, non blind.
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>>
>
>

Hi Mike,

The idea is that you are trying to draw attention to the negative and
> positive aspects of the tunings beforehand. If you are so confident that
> your system really is superior, then everyone should notice this from the
> outset, correct?
>
> Whether these aspects really ARE "negative" or "positive" is precisely what
> is up for debate. 1/4 comma shifts of 5 cents or so might seem bad to you in
> theory, but can anyone really distinguish them in practice?
>

Yes they can, with the right sound and attention and especially if the
melody is in isolation.
I've shown this before on this list.
To me it's not just theory, it sounds bad to me.
And like I've said in the first post that announced the competition, if
needed the entries will also be compared on single melodies.
I don't like people voting on something that has "hidden" flaws, and
competition rules that allow these flaws to remain hidden.
That in my eyes is not a fair competition. Even bordering on a
rigging/cheating.

>
> For you to bring attention to it defeats the purpose of the whole thing.
>

No it doesn't.
Since when is the truth a bad thing.
Let the truth be out there is my position.
Truth, openness and transparancy.

>
> It is your contest and I'll be entering no matter what, but fwiw you can't
> really claim that your system is "superior" if you color the examples
> beforehand by drawing attention to negative features of everyone else's
> tuning.
>

Everybody can draw attention to the negative features of everone else's
tunings.
And to the positive.
The tunings can be discussed on list, off list etc.
I'm not going to set up a website where I talk negatively about any entries
or anything like that, that wouldn't be fair at all and I will do everything
I can to ensure fairness and do it in such a way that other can check if I'm
doing things fairly.
And if ever a moment comes up where someone thinks I'm not beeing fair then
tell me and you'll have my full attention.
The only thing that I may do as the competition runner that'll influence
comparison of files is that I may decide that the entries will also be
rendered as single voices, and this only when I think that if this is not
done that on some of the entries certain important aspects of their tunings
may not be heard by voters. I've said this from the outset and I think that
should I think this is needed that it is a good thing (to hear better).
The only bad thing about this will be that there will be more files to
listen to, so if I don't see it as nessecary then I won't do it.

Btw I have 2 entries now from people other than myself + my own JI version +
pythagorean and 12tet for comparison (though I may drop pythagorean since
it's pretty useless in the competition) so that makes 4 or 5 entries so far.

I'm very glad you're joining and looking forward to your entry! :)
You can find the 12tet base MIDI file at www.develde.net (you may need to
hit shift-refresh button if the links still point to old files and give a
404)
I updated it today to include panning which helps very well in listening to
the melodies and judging the overall tuning I think.
Also updated the mp3's to include panning and all their first highest voice
notes now have thesame frequency for fair comparison.
So the way the files are there now allready makes a mini preview of the
competition if you like, between 12tet, JI and pythagorean :) (only still
with old timidity midi sound)

Marcel

> Yes they can, with the right sound and attention and especially if the melody is in isolation.
> I've shown this before on this list.
> To me it's not just theory, it sounds bad to me.
> And like I've said in the first post that announced the competition, if needed the entries will also be compared on single melodies.
> I don't like people voting on something that has "hidden" flaws, and competition rules that allow these flaws to remain hidden.
> That in my eyes is not a fair competition. Even bordering on a rigging/cheating.

How are they hidden? They're right there for everyone to hear. That
is, if they're within the realm of human perception to begin with.

> No it doesn't.
> Since when is the truth a bad thing.
> Let the truth be out there is my position.
> Truth, openness and transparancy.

Telling someone that something is wrong with a piece that has
imperceptible "flaws" as you put it will cause people to imagine flaws
that weren't there before. It will cause them to overimagine stuff
that wasn't there.

But honestly you have heard both sides and you have heard the
arguments. You're the one putting up the money, you do it your way

I agree here,

Blind, or even double blind trials are the norm.

If the entries are not randomized and presented to the voters as a blind
test I doubt you will get results that you can trust are true. If your
purpose is to demonstrate your method is a much better solution you may in
fact find the general public voters will vote against you out of angst for
past controversy here on the music list. And you'll be out your hundred
euros without accomplishing anything.

Chris

> Randomized trials are standard for these kinds of experiments.
> The results can't be taken seriously otherwise. I wasn't
> planning on submitting (I already gave a tuning for the opening).
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>

There is also the concern that more entries by the same persons will
have the edge against lesser or single entries by others. There should
be a limit to submissions in different tunings by the same people.
Otherwise, the competition will be flooded by useless tunings by the
same people to increase their chances at winning. Preferably,
everybody should be allowed to submit only one entry.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:05 AM, Mike Battaglia wrote:

>> Yes they can, with the right sound and attention and especially if
>> the melody is in isolation.
>> I've shown this before on this list.
>> To me it's not just theory, it sounds bad to me.
>> And like I've said in the first post that announced the
>> competition, if needed the entries will also be compared on single
>> melodies.
>> I don't like people voting on something that has "hidden" flaws,
>> and competition rules that allow these flaws to remain hidden.
>> That in my eyes is not a fair competition. Even bordering on a
>> rigging/cheating.
>
> How are they hidden? They're right there for everyone to hear. That
> is, if they're within the realm of human perception to begin with.
>
>> No it doesn't.
>> Since when is the truth a bad thing.
>> Let the truth be out there is my position.
>> Truth, openness and transparancy.
>
> Telling someone that something is wrong with a piece that has
> imperceptible "flaws" as you put it will cause people to imagine flaws
> that weren't there before. It will cause them to overimagine stuff
> that wasn't there.
>
> But honestly you have heard both sides and you have heard the
> arguments. You're the one putting up the money, you do it your way
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi Chris,

I agree here,
>
> Blind, or even double blind trials are the norm.
>
> If the entries are not randomized and presented to the voters as a blind
> test I doubt you will get results that you can trust are true. If your
> purpose is to demonstrate your method is a much better solution you may in
> fact find the general public voters will vote against you out of angst for
> past controversy here on the music list. And you'll be out your hundred
> euros without accomplishing anything.
>
> Chris
>

I don't think double blind tests are the right thing for this specific
competition.

Let me give another example.
Just yesterday, I gave the www.develde.net link to a musician I've known
casually for a long time.
He's been a professional musician for several years now. Music has been his
life for over 10 years.
He has finished his conservatory (school of music in english?) study some
years ago.

This is what he said in an email today (translated from Dutch:
"I've just listened 2 times to all 3 files.
If I'm very honest, my preference certainly goes to the standard western
tuning, but this could surely be because of of simply beeing used to
it...I'm also not a big fan of the pythagorean..
I've listened with an open mind to your JI version, but the first minor
chord just won't sound nice to me, and there's also a dim chord that
"dissonates" quite a bit to me..
What you said may be true: that in your tuning the dominants have a stronger
'pull' back.

Tough matter. I've been conditioned for so long to standard tuning..
I will listen later for one more time, to see if I can get used to it.."

Had this person been given a simple double blind test without any other
info, he would not have hesitated to immediately vote for 12tet.
Yet I allready know beforehand that given enough time and listening
guidance, this person will start "hearing" right and will eventually vote
for the JI version.
I assume that most people on this list if given the choice between 12tet and
my JI version on www.develde.net will vote for the JI version.
Yet had you been asked to do so before you got into tuning, most of you
would have probably voted for 12tet.

To correctly interpret tuning is something more difficult than simply taking
a double blind test.
Double blind test means less than a well informed listen, and a listen over
a longer period of time in the case of comparing tunings.

One other thing.
A double blind test isn't even possible. Many tunings will be guessed right
away and for instance mine is well known beforehand.
One other thing, in double blind people can'discuss tunings. I'd like to
have the files up for listening for a week before voting starts, and then
have voting for a week. This doesn't work well for blind tests as people
will discuss things.
Yet to put the files up and start voting immediately and only for a short
time is too rediculous for words in the case of comparing tunings. That
won't give right results, and some people will have formed very different
opinions after a few days allready.

Marcel

Hi Marcel,

With all due respect I fail to see the point in this contest besides
throwing away 100 euros.
Personally I'd rather you spent the money on some good software for you to
use to generate your examples.

I honestly think a contest is a poor venue to educate people about JI as you
outlined in the quote below. My initial impression was that the contest was
about stacking your JI method against all other possible tunings to
determine which is best - and by best I thought you meant best to the ear
and not best to the theory critical mind.

Of course you are free to do as you please and my offers of assistance still
stand. I do at this point question the reasons for the contest and wonder if
there was not a better way to accomplish your goals with respect to your JI
tuning theory.

Warm Regards,

Chris

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>wrote:

>
>
>
> Had this person been given a simple double blind test without any other
> info, he would not have hesitated to immediately vote for 12tet.
> Yet I allready know beforehand that given enough time and listening
> guidance, this person will start "hearing" right and will eventually vote
> for the JI version.
> I assume that most people on this list if given the choice between 12tet
> and my JI version on www.develde.net will vote for the JI version.
> Yet had you been asked to do so before you got into tuning, most of you
> would have probably voted for 12tet.
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > Randomized trials are standard for these kinds of experiments.
> > The results can't be taken seriously otherwise.
> >
>
> Can't be taken seriously otherwise?
> No I don't see this at all.
> Can you give a specific example how you think this voting would
> go wrong which will lead to results that can't be taken seriously?

You want me to explain basic experimental methods? Check it
out on wikipedia.

> For instance when auditioning audiophile equipment where the
> differences are very small.

People imagine big differences all the time. Like with
faith healing.

> I don't think this competition can be directly compared to such
> a listening test as there are many factors in this competition
> and I think in this case an informed ear is a better ear.
> And mostly the differences between files are big enough to not
> warrant a blind listening test.

If the differences are big that should be less justification
for informing listeners what to listen for, not more.

-Carl

> Had this person been given a simple double blind test without any other info, he would not have hesitated to immediately vote for 12tet.
> Yet I allready know beforehand that given enough time and listening guidance, this person will start "hearing" right and will eventually vote for the JI version.
> I assume that most people on this list if given the choice between 12tet and my JI version on www.develde.net will vote for the JI version.
> Yet had you been asked to do so before you got into tuning, most of you would have probably voted for 12tet.

On the other hand, given the difference between 12tet and adaptive-JI,
I'm willing to bet that most would pick adaptive-JI without even being
told what's going on.

-Mike

Hi Mike,

On the other hand, given the difference between 12tet and adaptive-JI,
> I'm willing to bet that most would pick adaptive-JI without even being
> told what's going on.
>

Ok how much are you willing to bet?
€100.- like I do? ;)

Anyhow, adaptive JI wouldn't be all that different. The first minor chord he
was talking about is a simple 10:12:15 minor chord.
Adaptive JI wouldn't do it any different.

I even fail to see how the optimal adaptive JI would differ from my
solution, other than removing 3 wolfs (which I can do with ease myself, but
makes it sound out of tune) and the fourth wolf would have to be solved with
a syntonic comma shift, there's no solving it with any smaller comma unless
sacrificing either a minor chord purity or the preceeding major chord (which
my version allready does without comma shifts)
Not to mention that adaptive JI doesn't even have a way to find the optimal
solution, but I'm fine with the optimal solution beeing found according to
my tuning system.
Let's please first hear your/any adaptive JI solutions (or even first make /
hear it yourself) to this piece before making bold claims you're probably
not willing to truly bet on ;)

Marcel

>> On the other hand, given the difference between 12tet and adaptive-JI,
>> I'm willing to bet that most would pick adaptive-JI without even being
>> told what's going on.
>
> Ok how much are you willing to bet?
> €100.- like I do? ;)

Well let's put it this way: if you tell everyone all of your opinions
of the negatives and positives of each tuning beforehand - you can't
lay claim to the above anymore :)

-Mike