Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Regarding Mike's message

LOL @ that you would send this to Carl separately.

You said this:

> It would be a fair idea that a group of members study the progression
features to qualify its validity degree in the art of music. The progression
of musical cells was derived in 1983.

And my response stays the same. It is about as valid as 12-tet is, since
it's a well temperament that differs no more than a maximum of 4 cents from
12-tet. That's all.

> I see that Mike is confused with deviation cents of Piagui scales
regarding 12TET. The underlined phrase of his message copied below is not
correct since Piagui I deviations are +2, +4 cents and Piagui III scale
shows -4, -2 cents. CONCLUSION: Two Piagui scales are not very close to 12
tet as he wrote. The combined +/- 4, +/- 2 cents established the noted
deviations from 12 tet.

When you say that your Piagui scales are "not very close" to 12-tet, and I
say that they "are very close" to 12-tet, we are simply using different
standards of what "closeness" is.

I am using the standard in this case of what the human ear will be able to
distinguish, and it will be able to distinguish only minimal differences
between 12-tet and your scale. I am also seeing how it compares to other
temperaments, and in this respect it is a -LOT- closer to 12-tet than many
commonly used ones. So in both of regards, a temperament that is within 4
cents at all times of 12-tet will be a LOT "closer" to 12-tet than a
temperament that has a major third that is 10 cents closer to 5/4 than
12-tet's is, or that represents 7/4 to within 3 cents. 41-equal, 53-equal,
miracle temperament, etc can do all of these things, your temperament
cannot. Your temperament can in general handle all of the intervals that
12-tet can.

Those are my standards for judging how "valid" a temperament is or how
"close" to 12-tet it is. What are yours?

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Mario Pizarro <piagui@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi,
>
> Mike Battaglia (message # 85504) misunderstood the clear content of my
> message where I only detailed the progression features and included a new
> relation given by J/M factor commas, a group of progression cells and 12TET
> scale.
>
> His message, given below, deals with "how good my scale is".
>
> Let me say that I didn´t write a word on how good Piagui scales are. My
> comments exclusively deal with the Progression of Musical Cells which was
> derived in 1983, there I suggest that a group of members of the list study
> the progression features and according to their conclusions they would
> qualify the progression validity degree in the art of music.
>
> I see that Mike is confused with deviation cents of Piagui scales regarding
> 12TET. The underlined phrase of his message copied below is not correct
> since Piagui I deviations are +2, +4 cents and Piagui III scale shows -4, -2
> cents. CONCLUSION: Two Piagui scales are not very close to 12 tet as he
> wrote. The combined +/- 4, +/- 2 cents established the noted deviations from
> 12 tet.
>
> Mike wrote:
> <The points are that when you ask us here to judge "how good" your scale
> is, the usual <approach to take is that we see how accurately it represents
> common intervals that <we'd like to use, such as 3/2 and 5/4, and weigh that
> against how consistent it is, what <intervals are tempered out, and so on.
>
> *<This scale is about as accurate with those as is 12-tet. At the most
> there is a 2 cent <deviation or so. It is about as good as representing
> those as 12-tet is.
>
> *<If you would like to see examples of tunings that differs significantly
> from 12-tet in its <representing of those intervals, search the archives for
> some of the well-temperaments <that have been used here, or perhaps string
> up 12 notes of 1/4 comma meantone. <Both of those have a more accurate 5/4
> and a less accurate 3/2. Or perhaps you <could play around with George
> Secor's 17 note well temperament, which I believe <has a less accurate 5/4
> but a more accurate 7/6 and 9/7.
>
> <All of these tunings differ drastically from 12-tet, both audibly and in
> theory. Yours is, <in comparison, very close to 12-tet. That is the most
> honest assessment that I think <anyone here can give you about it.
>
> -Mike
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks
>
> Mario Pizarro
>
> piagui@...
>
> Lima, January 09, 2010
>
>
> __________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de
> firmas de virus 4756 (20100109) __________
>
> ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Disclaimer: this message is somewhat personal but also highly related to tuning.

>"Those are my standards for judging how "valid" a temperament is or how "close" to 12-tet it is. What are yours?"

Some of mine are
A1) How many consonant (judged subjectively by at least a handful of people without looking at the math) chords can be made?
A2) Alternatively (IE as a substitute for A1), how many consonant chords can be proven by math IE given in "odd limit" notation.
B) How much difference tones vibration (IE beating between two notes where the notes are far enough apart to be heard as separate) is heard between any two sets of tones/Dyads?
Depending on artistic intent, the amount could be rather high (a tense scale) or low (a commercially viable one)...but there should be a large range of dissonance possible (IE some much more consonant than others).
C) Does it establish a new method IE get JI-like consonance without using JI or generally high dissonance without beating much?...so the method can be further explored and more psychoacoustic phenomena discovered.

I will still argue, for the sake of this list and tuning as a whole, that I find it sad people seem to rate to much tuning arts by how much it pays homage to what has been done before over what it actually sounds like (unless it Sounds like something that has been done before).

IMVHO, this page is far too often plagued with scales that sound almost exactly like 12TET and have methods that can not be stretched/applied to scales that don't.

And usually if a more deviant scale IE Decatonic or a truly new 7-limit scale is brought up, it's for the sake of "respecting history" rather than improving the tuning or finding new patterns in it that can potentially be used elsewhere.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm sorry folks...but, in many ways IMVHO, this thread seems to be going in circles and developing very little truly new material. And those who have come up with something fairly new IE Marcel and Chris and Ozan, are often not taken seriously when they do and have to hammer it across several times before given the "time of day" far as people looking into their theories seriously.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I swear, that attitude has to drop; not just for the sake of those people but, moreover, for the sake of actually developing the art of tuning (which is a major point of this thread, correct?)

And so far as Mario's tuning...yes I realize you (Mario) have been published and all...but I still don't see what makes your tuning any more practically useful than 12TET as they are so closely tuned (and sound virtually the same). If there IS something novel in the way you derived it that can be modified with different parameters to create something completely new and un-12TET-like yet very useful in terms of A,B,and C above...now is the time to look into that IMVHO.

-Michael

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 11:29:04 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Regarding Mike's message

LOL @ that you would send this to Carl separately.

You said this:

> It would be a fair idea that a group of members
study the progression features to qualify its validity degree in
the art of music. The progression of musical cells was derived in
1983.

And my response stays the same. It is about as valid as 12-tet is, since it's a well temperament that differs no more than a maximum of 4 cents from 12-tet. That's all.

> I see that Mike is confused with
deviation cents of Piagui scales regarding 12TET. The underlined phrase of
his message copied below is not correct since Piagui I deviations are +2, +4
cents and Piagui III scale shows -4, -2 cents. CONCLUSION: Two Piagui
scales are not very close to 12 tet as he wrote. The combined +/- 4, +/- 2 cents
established the noted deviations from 12 tet.

When you say that your Piagui scales are "not very close" to 12-tet, and I say that they "are very close" to 12-tet, we are simply using different standards of what "closeness" is.

I am using the standard in this case of what the human ear will be able to distinguish, and it will be able to distinguish only minimal differences between 12-tet and your scale. I am also seeing how it compares to other temperaments, and in this respect it is a -LOT- closer to 12-tet than many commonly used ones. So in both of regards, a temperament that is within 4 cents at all times of 12-tet will be a LOT "closer" to 12-tet than a temperament that has a major third that is 10 cents closer to 5/4 than 12-tet's is, or that represents 7/4 to within 3 cents. 41-equal, 53-equal, miracle temperament, etc can do all of these things, your temperament cannot. Your temperament can in general handle all of the intervals that 12-tet can.

Those are my standards for judging how "valid" a temperament is or how "close" to 12-tet it is. What are yours?

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Mario Pizarro <piagui@ec-red. com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>Hi,
>
>Mike Battaglia (message # 85504) misunderstood the
>clear content of my message where I only detailed the progression features and
>included a new relation given by J/M factor commas, a group of
>progression cells and 12TET scale.
>
>His message, given below, deals with "how good my
>scale is".
>
>Let me say that I didn´t write a word on how
>good Piagui scales are. My comments exclusively deal with the Progression of
>Musical Cells which was derived in 1983, there I suggest that a group of
>members of the list study the progression features and according to their
>conclusions they would qualify the progression validity degree in the art
>of music.
>
>I see that Mike is confused with
>deviation cents of Piagui scales regarding 12TET. The underlined phrase of
>his message copied below is not correct since Piagui I deviations are +2, +4
>cents and Piagui III scale shows -4, -2 cents. CONCLUSION: Two Piagui
>scales are not very close to 12 tet as he wrote. The combined +/- 4, +/- 2 cents
>established the noted deviations from 12 tet.
>
> Mike wrote:
><The points are that when you ask us here to judge "how good" your scale
>is, the usual <approach to take is that we see how accurately it represents
>common intervals that <we'd like to use, such as 3/2 and 5/4, and weigh that
>against how consistent it is, what <intervals are tempered out, and so
>on.
>
><This scale is about as accurate with those as is 12-tet. At
>the most there is a 2 cent <deviation or so. It is about as good as
>representing those as 12-tet is.
>
><If you would like to see
>examples of tunings that differs significantly from 12-tet in its
><representing of those intervals, search the archives for some of the
>well-temperaments <that have been used here, or perhaps string up 12 notes of
>1/4 comma meantone. <Both of those have a more accurate 5/4 and a less
>accurate 3/2. Or perhaps you <could play around with George Secor's 17 note
>well temperament, which I believe <has a less accurate 5/4 but a more
>accurate 7/6 and 9/7.
>
><All of these tunings differ drastically from
>12-tet, both audibly and in theory. Yours is, <in comparison, very close to
>12-tet. That is the most honest assessment that I think <anyone here can give
>you about it.
>
>-Mike
>------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---
>
>Thanks
>
>Mario Pizarro
>
>piagui@ec-red. com
>
>Lima, January 09, 2010
>
>>__________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas de virus 4756 (20100109) __________
>
>>ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.
>
>http://www.eset. com
>

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

With your standards the tuning still ranks "about as well" as does 12-tet.
The point is that these are all auditory factors. Pictures of graphs that
look better with tuning 2 vs tuning 1 are not.

Mario, rather than spin us in circles forever about the "mathematical
perfectness" of your system and how much better chords in your system look
when charted than 12-tet... why not just post some renderings of musical
pieces in 12-tet vs your tuning, and see if they sound better in your
tuning? After all, the number one criticism that you -consistently- get with
this tuning is that it is audibly indistinguishable from 12-tet. Rather than
just keep posting graphs, if you are so confident in your system, why not
let some sound clips settle the matter?

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Disclaimer: this message is somewhat personal but also highly related to
> tuning.
>
>
> >"Those are my standards for judging how "valid" a temperament is or how
> "close" to 12-tet it is. What are yours?"
>
> Some of mine are
> A1) How many consonant (judged subjectively by at least a handful of
> people without looking at the math) chords can be made?
> A2) Alternatively (IE as a substitute for A1), how many consonant
> chords can be proven by math IE given in "odd limit" notation.
> B) How much difference tones vibration (IE beating between two notes
> where the notes are far enough apart to be heard as separate) is heard
> between any two sets of tones/Dyads?
> Depending on artistic intent, the amount could be rather high (a
> tense scale) or low (a commercially viable one)...but there should be a
> large range of dissonance possible (IE some much more consonant than
> others).
> C) Does it establish a new method IE get JI-like consonance without
> using JI or generally high dissonance without beating much?...so the method
> can be further explored and more psychoacoustic phenomena discovered.
>
> I will still argue, for the sake of this list and tuning as a whole,
> that I find it sad people seem to rate to much tuning arts by how much it
> pays homage to what has been done before over what it actually sounds like
> (unless it Sounds like something that has been done before).
>
> IMVHO, this page is far too often plagued with scales that sound almost
> exactly like 12TET and have methods that can not be stretched/applied to
> scales that don't.
>
> And usually if a more deviant scale IE Decatonic or a truly new 7-limit
> scale is brought up, it's for the sake of "respecting history" rather than
> improving the tuning or finding new patterns in it that can potentially be
> used elsewhere.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I'm sorry folks...but, in many ways IMVHO, this thread seems to be
> going in circles and developing very little truly new material. And those
> who have come up with something fairly new IE Marcel and Chris and Ozan, are
> often not taken seriously when they do and have to hammer it across several
> times before given the "time of day" far as people looking into their
> theories seriously.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
> I swear, that attitude has to drop; not just for the sake of those
> people but, moreover, for the sake of actually developing the art of tuning
> (which is a major point of this thread, correct?)
>
> And so far as Mario's tuning...yes I realize you (Mario) have been
> published and all...but I still don't see what makes your tuning any more
> practically useful than 12TET as they are so closely tuned (and sound
> virtually the same). If there IS something novel in the way you derived it
> that can be modified with different parameters to create something
> completely new and un-12TET-like yet very useful in terms of A,B,and C
> above...now is the time to look into that IMVHO.
>
> -Michael
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
> *To:* tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sat, January 9, 2010 11:29:04 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [tuning] Regarding Mike's message
>
>
>
> LOL @ that you would send this to Carl separately.
>
> You said this:
>
> > It would be a fair idea that a group of members study the progression
> features to qualify its validity degree in the art of music. The progression
> of musical cells was derived in 1983.
>
> And my response stays the same. It is about as valid as 12-tet is, since
> it's a well temperament that differs no more than a maximum of 4 cents from
> 12-tet. That's all.
>
>
> > I see that Mike is confused with deviation cents of Piagui scales
> regarding 12TET. The underlined phrase of his message copied below is not
> correct since Piagui I deviations are +2, +4 cents and Piagui III scale
> shows -4, -2 cents. CONCLUSION: Two Piagui scales are not very close to 12
> tet as he wrote. The combined +/- 4, +/- 2 cents established the noted
> deviations from 12 tet.
>
> When you say that your Piagui scales are "not very close" to 12-tet, and I
> say that they "are very close" to 12-tet, we are simply using different
> standards of what "closeness" is.
>
> I am using the standard in this case of what the human ear will be able to
> distinguish, and it will be able to distinguish only minimal differences
> between 12-tet and your scale. I am also seeing how it compares to other
> temperaments, and in this respect it is a -LOT- closer to 12-tet than many
> commonly used ones. So in both of regards, a temperament that is within 4
> cents at all times of 12-tet will be a LOT "closer" to 12-tet than a
> temperament that has a major third that is 10 cents closer to 5/4 than
> 12-tet's is, or that represents 7/4 to within 3 cents. 41-equal, 53-equal,
> miracle temperament, etc can do all of these things, your temperament
> cannot. Your temperament can in general handle all of the intervals that
> 12-tet can.
>
> Those are my standards for judging how "valid" a temperament is or how
> "close" to 12-tet it is. What are yours?
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Mario Pizarro <piagui@ec-red. com<piagui@ec-red.com>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Mike Battaglia (message # 85504) misunderstood the clear content of my
>> message where I only detailed the progression features and included a new
>> relation given by J/M factor commas, a group of progression cells and 12TET
>> scale.
>>
>> His message, given below, deals with "how good my scale is".
>>
>> Let me say that I didn´t write a word on how good Piagui scales are. My
>> comments exclusively deal with the Progression of Musical Cells which was
>> derived in 1983, there I suggest that a group of members of the list study
>> the progression features and according to their conclusions they would
>> qualify the progression validity degree in the art of music.
>>
>> I see that Mike is confused with deviation cents of Piagui scales
>> regarding 12TET. The underlined phrase of his message copied below is not
>> correct since Piagui I deviations are +2, +4 cents and Piagui III scale
>> shows -4, -2 cents. CONCLUSION: Two Piagui scales are not very close to 12
>> tet as he wrote. The combined +/- 4, +/- 2 cents established the noted
>> deviations from 12 tet.
>>
>> Mike wrote:
>> <The points are that when you ask us here to judge "how good" your scale
>> is, the usual <approach to take is that we see how accurately it represents
>> common intervals that <we'd like to use, such as 3/2 and 5/4, and weigh that
>> against how consistent it is, what <intervals are tempered out, and so on.
>>
>> *<This scale is about as accurate with those as is 12-tet. At the most
>> there is a 2 cent <deviation or so. It is about as good as representing
>> those as 12-tet is.
>>
>> *<If you would like to see examples of tunings that differs significantly
>> from 12-tet in its <representing of those intervals, search the archives for
>> some of the well-temperaments <that have been used here, or perhaps string
>> up 12 notes of 1/4 comma meantone. <Both of those have a more accurate 5/4
>> and a less accurate 3/2. Or perhaps you <could play around with George
>> Secor's 17 note well temperament, which I believe <has a less accurate 5/4
>> but a more accurate 7/6 and 9/7.
>>
>> <All of these tunings differ drastically from 12-tet, both audibly and in
>> theory. Yours is, <in comparison, very close to 12-tet. That is the most
>> honest assessment that I think <anyone here can give you about it.
>>
>> -Mike
>> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
>> --------- ---
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Mario Pizarro
>>
>> piagui@ec-red. com <piagui@...>
>>
>> Lima, January 09, 2010
>>
>>
>> __________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de
>> firmas de virus 4756 (20100109) __________
>>
>> ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.
>>
>> http://www.eset. com <http://www.eset.com>
>>
>
>
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Mario Pizarro <piagui@...>

To the tuning list,

Mike Battaglia don't see that I am not talking about scales and this includes Piagui. Would you (Mike) please reread my first message that I copied below?

We'd better set aside the scales matter, (Mike) will you?.

The only point I am interested to know is about the opinion of some members regarding the validity or useless degree of the Progression of Musical Cells.

I agree with most of your (Mike) viewpoints.
Just a comment: Since the imperfection of 12TET scale is rather small I guess that a much better one (or the ideal one) would show a low number of deviation cents.

Thanks

Mario Pizarro

Jan. 09 ---- 03:00 p.m.

Below you have my first message; I don't talk about Piagui scales.
---------------------------------------
Hi,

I hope you could recognize that the PROGRESSION OF MUSICAL CELLS (612 cells per octave) is either a scientific set of true musical frequencies or Satan forced my brain to derive their frequency values.

A few members have the progression and at least one of you has the book that contains this information. I explained some of its features which are related with scales, how the pithagorean comma takes part of it as well as semitones 256/ 243, 135/128, 16/15, Piagui K and P; perfect links of 3/2 and 4/3 between any chosen cell and a second one, comparisons between Piagui and 12TET chord wave peak responses and other remarkable relations.

The progression was derived in 1983 and come from 612 products of M, J, U commas. When each comma is multiplied by a cell frequency, the following cell frequency is obtained. It is a cyclical process that starts with 1 = C.

Cell Nº 1 = M* 1 = M.
Cell Nº 2 = M* Cell Nº 1 = M^2
Cell Nº 3 = J* Cell Nº 2 = J*M^2
Cell Nº 4 = J* Cell Nº 3 = (J^2)*M^2 --- U comma factor works for the first time as a factor of cell Nº 23 to get Nº 24.
...................etc
The first 52 cells are the results of the following comma factor sequence:
MMJJMM MMJJMM MMJJMM JJMMUU MMJJMM MMJJ MMJJMM MMJJMM MMJJMM. Last cell of this group (M^32) (J^18) (U^2), equals semitone factor
K = (9/8)^(1/2).

Due to printing errors it should be noticed that SETS Rº given in the book must follow the same comma sequence detailed in SETS R.

The above comma factor sequence is repeated (624/52) = 12 times. Cell frequency Nº 624 equals 2.02728652954...while Nº 612 is the octave 2.
Frequency ratio (Nº 624/Nº 612) = 1.01364326477 = Pythagorean comma = Cell Nº 12.
------------------------------------

I want to comment that this afternoon I detected an important progression feature. In the past I said and wrote that the progression do not contain any frequency of the 12TET scale. I WAS WRONG, really the 12 tone frequencies of the equal tempered scale are functions of cells Nºs 51, 102, 153, 204, 255, 306, 357, 408, 459, 510, 561, 612 and quotient J/M.

The mentioned cell numbers and the 12TET tones have the following data (From C# to 2C):

Cell: " 1.05946387772 " ---- 12TET: " 1.05946309436 " --- Error = Q1 = 1.0000007394

Cell: " 1.12246370821 " --- 12TET: " 1.12246204831 " --- Error = Q2 = 1.00000147881

Cell: " 1.189207115 " --- 12TET: " 1.189207115 " --- Error = 0

Cell: " 1.25991918672 " --- 12TET: " 1.25992104989 " --- Error = Q2 = 1.00000147881

Cell: " 1.33483886718 " --- 12TET: " 1.33483985415 " --- Error = Q1 = 1.0000007394

Cell: " 1.41421356237 " --- 12TET: " 1.41421356237 " --- Error = 0

Cell: " 1.49830818472 " --- 12TET: " 1.49830707687 " --- Error = Q1 = 1.0000007394

Cell: " 1.58740339942 " --- 12TET: " 1.58740105196 " --- Error = Q2 = 1.00000147881

Cell: " 1.68179283051 " --- 12TET: " 1.68179283051 " --- Error = 0

Cell: " 1.78179480135 " --- 12TET: " 1.78179743628 " --- Error = Q2 = 1.00000147881

Cell: " 1.88774722955 " --- 12TET: " 1.88774862535 " --- Error = Q1 = 1.0000007394

Cell: "2" -------------------------- 12TET "2" ------------------------- Error = 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Q1*Q2) = (J/M) = 1.00000221821 ------ A new relation

CONCLUSION

Since J and M are progression comma factors, both, the two types of errors, the cell frequencies together with the exact value of the 12TET tone frequencies are linked.

It would be a fair idea that a group of members study the progression features to qualify its validity degree in the art of music. The progression of musical cells was derived in 1983.

Thanks

Mario Pizarro

piagui@...

Lima, January 08, 2010

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Battaglia
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Regarding Mike's message

With your standards the tuning still ranks "about as well" as does 12-tet. The point is that these are all auditory factors. Pictures of graphs that look better with tuning 2 vs tuning 1 are not.

Mario, rather than spin us in circles forever about the "mathematical perfectness" of your system and how much better chords in your system look when charted than 12-tet... why not just post some renderings of musical pieces in 12-tet vs your tuning, and see if they sound better in your tuning? After all, the number one criticism that you -consistently- get with this tuning is that it is audibly indistinguishable from 12-tet. Rather than just keep posting graphs, if you are so confident in your system, why not let some sound clips settle the matter?

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

Disclaimer: this message is somewhat personal but also highly related to tuning.

>"Those are my standards for judging how "valid" a temperament is or how "close" to 12-tet it is. What are yours?"

IMVHO, this page is far too often plagued with scales that sound almost exactly like 12TET and have methods that can not be stretched/applied to scales that don't.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I swear, that attitude has to drop; not just for the sake of those people but, moreover, for the sake of actually developing the art of tuning (which is a major point of this thread, correct?)

-Michael

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 11:29:04 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Regarding Mike's message

LOL @ that you would send this to Carl separately.

You said this:

> It would be a fair idea that a group of members study the progression features to qualify its validity degree in the art of music. The progression of musical cells was derived in 1983.

And my response stays the same. It is about as valid as 12-tet is, since it's a well temperament that differs no more than a maximum of 4 cents from 12-tet. That's all.

> I see that Mike is confused with deviation cents of Piagui scales regarding 12TET. The underlined phrase of his message copied below is not correct since Piagui I deviations are +2, +4 cents and Piagui III scale shows -4, -2 cents. CONCLUSION: Two Piagui scales are not very close to 12 tet as he wrote. The combined +/- 4, +/- 2 cents established the noted deviations from 12 tet.

When you say that your Piagui scales are "not very close" to 12-tet, and I say that they "are very close" to 12-tet, we are simply using different standards of what "closeness" is.

I am using the standard in this case of what the human ear will be able to distinguish, and it will be able to distinguish only minimal differences between 12-tet and your scale. I am also seeing how it compares to other temperaments, and in this respect it is a -LOT- closer to 12-tet than many commonly used ones. So in both of regards, a temperament that is within 4 cents at all times of 12-tet will be a LOT "closer" to 12-tet than a temperament that has a major third that is 10 cents closer to 5/4 than 12-tet's is, or that represents 7/4 to within 3 cents. 41-equal, 53-equal, miracle temperament, etc can do all of these things, your temperament cannot. Your temperament can in general handle all of the intervals that 12-tet can.

Those are my standards for judging how "valid" a temperament is or how "close" to 12-tet it is. What are yours?

-Mike

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Mario Pizarro <piagui@ec-red. com> wrote:

Hi,

Mike Battaglia (message # 85504) misunderstood the clear content of my message where I only detailed the progression features and included a new relation given by J/M factor commas, a group of progression cells and 12TET scale.

His message, given below, deals with "how good my scale is".

Let me say that I didn´t write a word on how good Piagui scales are. My comments exclusively deal with the Progression of Musical Cells which was derived in 1983, there I suggest that a group of members of the list study the progression features and according to their conclusions they would qualify the progression validity degree in the art of music.

I see that Mike is confused with deviation cents of Piagui scales regarding 12TET. The underlined phrase of his message copied below is not correct since Piagui I deviations are +2, +4 cents and Piagui III scale shows -4, -2 cents. CONCLUSION: Two Piagui scales are not very close to 12 tet as he wrote. The combined +/- 4, +/- 2 cents established the noted deviations from 12 tet.

Mike wrote:
<The points are that when you ask us here to judge "how good" your scale is, the usual <approach to take is that we see how accurately it represents common intervals that <we'd like to use, such as 3/2 and 5/4, and weigh that against how consistent it is, what <intervals are tempered out, and so on.

<This scale is about as accurate with those as is 12-tet. At the most there is a 2 cent <deviation or so. It is about as good as representing those as 12-tet is.

<If you would like to see examples of tunings that differs significantly from 12-tet in its <representing of those intervals, search the archives for some of the well-temperaments <that have been used here, or perhaps string up 12 notes of 1/4 comma meantone. <Both of those have a more accurate 5/4 and a less accurate 3/2. Or perhaps you <could play around with George Secor's 17 note well temperament, which I believe <has a less accurate 5/4 but a more accurate 7/6 and 9/7.

<All of these tunings differ drastically from 12-tet, both audibly and in theory. Yours is, <in comparison, very close to 12-tet. That is the most honest assessment that I think <anyone here can give you about it.

-Mike
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---

Thanks

Mario Pizarro

piagui@ec-red. com

Lima, January 09, 2010

__________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas de virus 4756 (20100109) __________

ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.

http://www.eset. com

__________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas de virus 4757 (20100109) __________

ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas de virus 4757 (20100109) __________

ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.

http://www.eset.com

🔗Mario Pizarro <piagui@...>

Michael has a particular way to critize the work I did since 1983. I can count with the fingers of my hand how many members requested and got the progression of musical cells that contains parameters which are useful tools to derive scales and do the research on related matters. Most of the list have enough knowledges with which they could expand the progression features but seems they are too busy with other topics. Since I didn´t study music in any institution or university I don't have the means to continue the research even in the area of consonance.

I think that more than two years have passed since I used the files to give information by means of chord wave peak graphs and now Michael repeats that instead of just keep posting graphs, if I am so confident in my system, why not let some sound clips settle the matter?.
I appreciate Michael, his viewpoints go directly to the point. It is well known that my scales pertain to the group of the 12 TET scales since their cent deviations are 3.9, 1.96, 0 and therefore I would be wasting my time if I send you the chord sounds.

Michael added the following:

>Does it establish a feel different than / unique to any popular scale system?<

Why he didn't put the same filter to the dozens of scale proposals in the past?. I am against the probable idea that I am the only man in this planet to whom anybody might practice his philosophic ideas. Has he ever heard about democracy in the music world or on keeping the doors opened for the wise and the standard people?

Michael added:

>"C) Does it establish a new method IE get JI-like consonance without using JI or generally high dissonance without beating much?...so the method can be further explored and more psychoacoustic phenomena discovered." -myself before<

I need a translator to understand his highly confusing terms.

Thanks

Mario Pizarro

Lima, January 21, 2010

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Regarding Mike's message

>"With your standards the tuning still ranks "about as well" as does 12-tet."
Perhaps I should have added
D) Does it establish a feel different than / unique to any popular scale system?
Indeed 12TET does qualify by the other standards, though it doesn't show anything new so far as C).
IE
"C) Does it establish a new method IE get JI-like consonance without using JI or generally high dissonance without beating much?...so the method can be further explored and more psychoacoustic phenomena discovered." -myself before

>"Rather than just keep posting graphs, if you are so confident in your system, why not let some sound clips settle the matter?"
Agreed. We need to be able to tell by ears if it's better (even if only a tad) than 12TET to the point that we can recognize it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

_,_._,___

__________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas de virus 4757 (20100109) __________

ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.

http://www.eset.com

__________ Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas de virus 4795 (20100121) __________

ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este mensaje.

http://www.eset.com

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

Michael/myself>>"Does it
establish a feel different than / unique to any popular scale
system?"

Mario>"Why he didn't put the same filter to the dozens of scale proposals in the
past?. I am against the probable idea that I am the only man in this
planet to whom anybody might practice his philosophic ideas. Has he ever heard
about democracy in the music world or on keeping the doors opened for the wise
and the standard people?"

Another way to put it...it is good to make a scale that does not go in circles relative to history. Put 7-tone scales generated by mean-tone, JI, and 12TET...and the average listener often won't notice a difference. This, IMVHO, presents a problem as people often end up using unique mathematical method to explain something already there. History has its wisdom, yes...but by simply repeating it and not adding anything understandable to the public as sounding original, we end up simply repeating history.

Michael/myself>>"Does it establish a new method IE get JI-like consonance without using JI or
generally high dissonance without beating much?...so the method can be further
explored and more psychoacoustic phenomena discovered." -myself
before<"

In other words, does it at least (if the scale doesn't sound different from 12TET to the average listener)
A) Use unique mathematical methods to arrive at the similar-sounding to 12TET answer
B) Have the ability to twist around the parameters in the scale generation formula to create new types of scales that sound consonant and yet not at all like 12TET (easy example = Lucy Tuning).

________________________________
From: Mario Pizarro <piagui@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 12:15:42 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Regarding Mike's message

Michael has a particular way to critize
the work I did since 1983. I can count with the fingers of my hand how many
members requested and got the progression of musical cells that
contains parameters which are useful tools to derive scales and do the
research on related matters. Most of the list have enough knowledges with which
they could expand the progression features but seems they are too
busy with other topics. Since I didn´t study music in any institution or
university I don't have the means to continue the research even
in the area of consonance.

I think that more than two years have passed
since I used the files to give information by means of chord wave peak
graphs and now Michael repeats that instead of just keep posting graphs, if I am so confident in my system, why not
let some sound clips settle the matter?.
I appreciate
Michael, his viewpoints go directly to the point. It is well known that my
scales pertain to the group of the 12 TET scales since their cent deviations are
3.9, 1.96, 0 and therefore I would be wasting my time if I
send you the chord sounds.

Michael added the following:

>Does it
establish a feel different than / unique to any popular scale
system?<

Why he didn't put the same filter to the dozens of scale proposals in the
past?. I am against the probable idea that I am the only man in this
planet to whom anybody might practice his philosophic ideas. Has he ever heard
about democracy in the music world or on keeping the doors opened for the wise
and the standard people?

Michael added:

>"C)
Does it establish a new method IE get JI-like consonance without using JI or
generally high dissonance without beating much?...so the method can be further
explored and more psychoacoustic phenomena discovered." -myself
before<

I need a
translator to understand his highly confusing
terms.

Thanks

Mario Pizarro

Lima, January 21, 2010

----- Original Message -----
>From: Michael
>To: tuning@yahoogroups. com
>Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 2:25
> PM
>Subject: Re: [tuning] Regarding Mike's
> message
>
>
>>"With your standards the tuning still ranks "about as well" as does
> 12-tet."
> Perhaps I should have added
>D) Does it
> establish a feel different than / unique to any popular scale
> system?
> Indeed 12TET does qualify by the other
> standards, though it doesn't show anything new so far as
> C).
>IE
> "C) Does it establish a new method IE get
> JI-like consonance without using JI or generally high dissonance without
> beating much?...so the method can be further explored and more psychoacoustic
> phenomena discovered." -myself before
>
>>"Rather than just keep
> posting graphs, if you are so confident in your system, why not let some sound
> clips settle the matter?"
> Agreed. We need to be able to
> tell by ears if it's better (even if only a tad) than 12TET to the point that
> we can recognize
> it.
>
>
>------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
>
>
>
>_,_._,___
>
>__________
> Información de ESET NOD32 Antivirus, versión de la base de firmas de virus
> 4757 (20100109) __________
>
>ESET NOD32 Antivirus ha comprobado este
> mensaje.
>
>http://www.eset. com
>