Is Harmonic Entropy based on Tenney Height?

In message 97250 Michael said "Harmonic Entropy is based on
Tenney Height".

Is this correct?

If it is then I have bad news for fans of Harmonic Entropy. I have found 4 inconsistencies in Tenney Height. Here they are...

I say:

(i) 9/5 is better than 7/6.
(ii) 11/6 is better than 9/7.
(iii) 11/7 is better than 9/8.
(iv) 13/7 is better than 11/8.

Tenney Height says the opposite.

Stop ignoring me and do the listening tests yourself.

John.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" <jfos777@...> wrote:

> Tenney Height says the opposite.

Sounds good to me.

> Stop ignoring me and do the listening tests yourself.

Then why don't you provide the listening tests?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" <jfos777@...> wrote:

> I say:
> (i) 9/5 is better than 7/6.
> (ii) 11/6 is better than 9/7.
> (iii) 11/7 is better than 9/8.
> (iv) 13/7 is better than 11/8.
>
> Tenney Height says the opposite.
>
> Stop ignoring me and do the listening tests yourself.

Hey John - my ears disagree with you on every single one
of these. Moreover, what good is a "formula" that only
works on sine tones? Moreover, I'm tired of your constant
nonsense posts here. Please consider unsubscribing for
my sake! Thanks,

-Carl

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:12 PM, john777music <jfos777@...> wrote:
>
> I say:
>
> (i) 9/5 is better than 7/6.
> (ii) 11/6 is better than 9/7.
> (iii) 11/7 is better than 9/8.
> (iv) 13/7 is better than 11/8.
>
> Tenney Height says the opposite.
>
> Stop ignoring me and do the listening tests yourself.

I third that I like the Tenney Height predictions better.

-Mike

   I'll say this much...13/7 does sound much better to me than 11/8...and I think both John's system and Tenney Height completely mis-rate the nearby 15/8, which sounds better to me than 13/7. 

Carl>"Moreover, what good is a "formula" that only works on sine tones? "
  I don't see why John's formula is any more sine-tone oriented than Tenney Height.  Both seem to fall flat on their faces for 11 and 13 limit and excel especially at 5 and 7 limit.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:44 AM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
>    I'll say this much...13/7 does sound much better to me than 11/8...and I think both John's system and Tenney Height completely mis-rate the nearby 15/8, which sounds better to me than 13/7.
>
> Carl>"Moreover, what good is a "formula" that only works on sine tones? "
>   I don't see why John's formula is any more sine-tone oriented than Tenney Height.  Both seem to fall flat on their faces for 11 and 13 limit and excel especially at 5 and 7 limit.

You just can't compare the two. I'm going to write a long, wordy post,
in a few minutes that goes into the basics of musical psychoacoustics,
and I suggest you read it. I don't understand why people keep
comparing models that have nothing to do with one another.

John's is a very rough rule of thumb model that attempts to average
critical band effects and time-frequency uncertainty effects going on
in the brain. Tenney Height is a very rough rule of thumb model that
attempts to measure just the uncertainty effects going on in the
brain. You just can't compare them like that. You also can't compare
Sethares' model with HE. It's like comparing a model for weightlifting
with one for running.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> You just can't compare the two. I'm going to write a long, wordy post,
> in a few minutes that goes into the basics of musical psychoacoustics,
> and I suggest you read it. I don't understand why people keep
> comparing models that have nothing to do with one another.

It's partly because you have not given your reasons for claiming we have apples and oranges here.

> John's is a very rough rule of thumb model that attempts to average
> critical band effects and time-frequency uncertainty effects going on
> in the brain. Tenney Height is a very rough rule of thumb model that
> attempts to measure just the uncertainty effects going on in the
> brain. You just can't compare them like that.

So you say. Evidence? Arguments?

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:08 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > You just can't compare the two. I'm going to write a long, wordy post,
> > in a few minutes that goes into the basics of musical psychoacoustics,
> > and I suggest you read it. I don't understand why people keep
> > comparing models that have nothing to do with one another.
>
> It's partly because you have not given your reasons for claiming we have apples and oranges here.
>
> > John's is a very rough rule of thumb model that attempts to average
> > critical band effects and time-frequency uncertainty effects going on
> > in the brain. Tenney Height is a very rough rule of thumb model that
> > attempts to measure just the uncertainty effects going on in the
> > brain. You just can't compare them like that.
>
> So you say. Evidence? Arguments?

John's model is a weighted average of the harmonic complexity of the
tones and the proximity to one another. This means that it's measuring
stuff going on in the ear (critical band effects) and the brain
(harmonic complexity).

Tenney Height just measures harmonic complexity. This means that it's
measuring stuff going on in the brain (harmonic complexity).

So in what sense are we comparing them?

-Mike

Do you mean a sound file?

Also no one has answered my question: is Harmonic Entropy based on Tenney Height?

John.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" <jfos777@> wrote:
>
> > Tenney Height says the opposite.
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> > Stop ignoring me and do the listening tests yourself.
>
> Then why don't you provide the listening tests?
>

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:04 PM, john777music <jfos777@...> wrote:
>
> Do you mean a sound file?
>
> Also no one has answered my question: is Harmonic Entropy based on Tenney Height?
>
> John.

Indirectly, yes.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" <jfos777@> wrote:
>
> > I say:
> > (i) 9/5 is better than 7/6.
> > (ii) 11/6 is better than 9/7.
> > (iii) 11/7 is better than 9/8.
> > (iv) 13/7 is better than 11/8.
> >
> > Tenney Height says the opposite.
> >
> > Stop ignoring me and do the listening tests yourself.
>
> Hey John - my ears disagree with you on every single one
> of these.

That's why I wrote my Interval Calculator program, some intervals were clearly good, some clearly bad and a lot in a gray area in between. I couldn't trust my ears for the gray area intervals. Based on the clearly good and clearly bad intervals the program classifies the gray area intervals. My point is that I suspect you *wanted* me to be wrong so your ears told you I was wrong. If you *wanted* me to be right your ears might tell you the opposite.

The same of course applies to me, I *wanted* my program to be correct. However when I did the listening tests I didn't know which note of each pair favoured my program. I chose what I thought was the better interval first and then checked afterwards to see whether it agreed with my program or not.

Did you actually perform a listening test on the four pairs of intervals I mentioned or are you going by memory/hunch?

Moreover, what good is a "formula" that only
> works on sine tones?

You obviously don't read my posts, I have said countless times that my Interval Calculator program (based on my sine wave formula)
which considers the first 1024 partials of each note in an interval, is good for musical notes with a complex, 'regular' timbre. Regular meaning that the frequencies of the partials are x, 2x, 3x, 4x etc and the amplitude of the partials are y, y/2, y/3, y/4 etc.

Moreover, I'm tired of your constant
> nonsense posts here. Please consider unsubscribing for
> my sake! Thanks,

You're entitled to your opinion. Try testing some of my ideas before you judge them.

Finally, can you answer my question please: is Harmonic Entropy based on Tenney Height?

John.

>
> -Carl
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> So in what sense are we comparing them?

I'm seeing assertions but no arguments for them. Both give us functions of the numerator and denominator of reduced fractions which can be used as figures of merit, and hence they are basically the same kind of thing. The important questions to me are accuracy and usefulness. Since "badness" is a one-dimensional conceptual construct and the actual sounds we hear are multidimensional and dependent on various factors aside the tuning of the interval, obviously I don't expect too much; my modest expectations have been met pretty well by Tenney height and so far I have seen nothing aside from John's bare assertions that his model works better to suggest abandoning it.

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > So in what sense are we comparing them?
>
> I'm seeing assertions but no arguments for them.

I gave you arguments right in the thing you cut off before the quote.

> Both give us functions of the numerator and denominator of reduced fractions which can be used as figures of merit, and hence they are basically the same kind of thing. The important questions to me are accuracy and usefulness. Since "badness" is a one-dimensional conceptual construct and the actual sounds we hear are multidimensional and dependent on various factors aside the tuning of the interval, obviously I don't expect too much; my modest expectations have been met pretty well by Tenney height and so far I have seen nothing aside from John's bare assertions that his model works better to suggest abandoning it.

As general "badness" tools I guess you can compare them. I suppose my
statement was biased from the other thread where we had Tenney Height,
HE, Sethares' curve, John's formula, and everything you can think of
being tossed around as if they were interchangeable and in direct
competition.

-Mike

Thanks Mike.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:04 PM, john777music <jfos777@...> wrote:
> >
> > Do you mean a sound file?
> >
> > Also no one has answered my question: is Harmonic Entropy based on Tenney Height?
> >
> > John.
>
> Indirectly, yes.
>
> -Mike
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "john777music" <jfos777@...> wrote:
>
> Do you mean a sound file?

Of course.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM, genewardsmith
> <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > > So in what sense are we comparing them?
> >
> > I'm seeing assertions but no arguments for them.
>
> I gave you arguments right in the thing you cut off before the quote.

Sorry, it looked to me like a lot of unsupported assertions.