Getting microtuning easily with the new Midi Integrator

Hi,

Mike just told me that you have "watching your antics very closely" as
you of this group are looking for an easy way to create microtonal
music.

Well, I have been writing software to make the whole midi experience
both cheaper and more productive, a concept I now call "midi
integration" - integrating the PC better with midi via a few simple
improvements in the midi processing system.
While I don't have time to pursue MT myself right now (I understand some
of the concepts), I did definitely write my software, packaged as "Midi
Integrator" with MT extensions in mind.
The software, manual and Max/MSP source code is all here:
http://www.altkeyboards.com/file-cabinet
<http://www.altkeyboards.com/file-cabinet> and an improving online
description is here: http://www.altkeyboards.com/integrator
<http://www.altkeyboards.com/integrator> It runs when unzipped, on
both Win/Mac platforms.

It would be simple to make Integrator microtonal. Right now one maps,
say the PCkeyboard keyboard "G" key (=ASCII #108) to the message "L N
60" (play, on the Left instrument, Note 60 [middle C]. It would be easy
to add the concept "M", for Microtone" and map the G key to "L M 60.25"
(Play, on the Left instrument, Microtone 60.25 [middle C sharped by 25
cents]).

We could also the command to change or switch the intonation of the
virtual instrument, e.g. S (Sharpen) with a decimal parameter, and the
commands J (Just intonate) and T (TET it)

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Ken. Rushton, www.MusicScienceGuy.com <http://www.MusicScienceGuy.com>

Hi Ken,

Good to see you on these lists! As I said before, I've been reposting
stuff from your forum over here for some time now when relevant.

Can you recommend some hardware to interface with this? So far,
existing microtonal MIDI controllers are either prohibitively
expensive, or they're setup in a format that I think is less than
ideal (like the Wicki layout on the AXiS-49). This may just be my
preference, because lots of people here seem to like the AXiS, but I'd
prefer a Bosanquet layout... can't find any under a few thousand.

Is there some obvious solution that I'm missing? Some kind of speak
and spell hexagonal button panel that can be adapted with an Arduino
for use with your software. I see that the MIDI integrator allows for
the use of the actual computer keyboard in controlling the sound
output, but as you know, some keyboards only let you push a couple of
buttons at a time before they crap out...

-Mike

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 8:46 PM, musicscienceguy <krushton@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Mike just told me that you have "watching your antics very closely" as you of this group are looking for an easy way to create microtonal music.
>
> Well, I have been writing software to make the whole midi experience both cheaper and more productive, a concept I now call "midi integration" - integrating the PC better with midi via a few simple improvements in the midi processing system.
> While I don't have time to pursue MT myself right now (I understand some of the concepts), I did definitely write my software, packaged as "Midi Integrator" with MT extensions in mind.
> The software, manual and Max/MSP source code is all here: http://www.altkeyboards.com/file-cabinet and an improving online description is here: http://www.altkeyboards.com/integrator  It runs when unzipped, on both Win/Mac platforms.
>
> It would be simple to make Integrator microtonal. Right now one maps, say the PCkeyboard keyboard "G" key (=ASCII #108) to the message "L N 60" (play, on the Left instrument, Note 60 [middle C].  It would be easy to add the concept "M", for Microtone" and map the G key to "L M 60.25" (Play, on the Left instrument, Microtone 60.25 [middle C sharped by 25 cents]).
>
> We could also the command to change or switch the intonation of the virtual instrument, e.g. S (Sharpen) with a decimal parameter, and the commands J (Just intonate) and T (TET it)
>
> I could go on, but you get the idea.
>
> Ken. Rushton, www.MusicScienceGuy.com

--- Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> Can you recommend some hardware to interface with this? So far,
> existing microtonal MIDI controllers are either prohibitively
> expensive, or they're setup in a format that I think is less than
> ideal (like the Wicki layout on the AXiS-49).

The AXiS-49 only enforces a layout with its key coloring, which
isn't a Wicki but rather a Sonome layout. It is possible to
rearrange the keycaps with some work.

-Carl

There is also the Tonal Plexus keyboard from H-Pi Instruments, which is, as far as I can see, the ideal current instrument of MT work.

It you want to go MT for less, you can try turning an axis-49 or two 60 or 90 degrees side-ways (like I do to adapt them into jammers) and mapping rows in ascending pitch with microtonal variations going across.

I like the Axis-49 - they are rugged and can be adapted in many ways.
I'm switching over to learning to play the jammer, so may not answer posts here very quickly, don't take offense. I will generally answer questions posted to my blog

Ken. www.MusicScienceGuy.com

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> > Can you recommend some hardware to interface with this? So far,
> > existing microtonal MIDI controllers are either prohibitively
> > expensive, or they're setup in a format that I think is less than
> > ideal (like the Wicki layout on the AXiS-49).
>
> The AXiS-49 only enforces a layout with its key coloring, which
> isn't a Wicki but rather a Sonome layout. It is possible to
> rearrange the keycaps with some work.

You're right, it is Sonome. I meant more that I didn't like that the
hexagonal keys were aligned in rows and columns, instead of rotated at
an angle like a Bosanquet layout would be - it would probably make it
weird to play octaves.

Maybe it would be good for porcupine though.

-Mike

PS: you appear to have missed
http://soundcloud.com/mikebattagliamusic/happy-birthday .

--- Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

> You're right, it is Sonome. I meant more that I didn't like that the
> hexagonal keys were aligned in rows and columns, instead of rotated at
> an angle like a Bosanquet layout would be - it would probably make it
> weird to play octaves.

Well, there aren't many octaves on it (with a chromatic
layout). But if you really want Bosanquet, you can simply
turn the instrument slightly.

-Carl

You can try any tuning you want - there are several un-researched ones.

Try one out, document well it's pros and cons, and I will propose that
it be named after you. Since I have the primary (only) website on the
web documenting such things, you have a clear shot at immortality. ;)

Ken.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- Mike Battaglia battaglia01@ wrote:
>
> > You're right, it is Sonome. I meant more that I didn't like that the
> > hexagonal keys were aligned in rows and columns, instead of rotated
at
> > an angle like a Bosanquet layout would be - it would probably make
it
> > weird to play octaves.
>
> Well, there aren't many octaves on it (with a chromatic
> layout). But if you really want Bosanquet, you can simply
> turn the instrument slightly.
>
> -Carl
>

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > You're right, it is Sonome. I meant more that I didn't like that the
> > hexagonal keys were aligned in rows and columns, instead of rotated at
> > an angle like a Bosanquet layout would be - it would probably make it
> > weird to play octaves.
>
> Well, there aren't many octaves on it (with a chromatic
> layout). But if you really want Bosanquet, you can simply
> turn the instrument slightly.

Yeah, I need to re-evaluate this. At the time, I remembered looking at
this option and deciding that you'd run off the keyboard, which would
be bad. Now that I'm experimenting with tunings on the size order of
15 ET - 22 ET, instead of 31 ET - 72 ET, this might not be so bad.

-Mike

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:55 PM, musicscienceguy <krushton@...> wrote:
>
> You can try any tuning you want - there are several un-researched ones.
>
> Try one out, document well it's pros and cons, and I will propose that it be named after you. Since I have the primary (only) website on the web documenting such things, you have a clear shot at immortality. ;)
>
> Ken.

What do you mean any tuning - you mean any generalized keyboard
layout? If so, there's been a lot of research done on this list about
that sort of thing... An infinite number of isomorphic 2d layouts
exist for any tuning system (of rank < 2, don't worry about what this
means), even ones where three major thirds doesn't bring you to the
octave and so on.

Carl had an interesting one based around something called "Pajara
temperament" which works in 12-equal, although 22-equal is a better
tuning for it. That might be worth adding to your collection.

Pajara is another underlying temperament that 12-equal "supports,"
just as "meantone" is an underlying temperament that 12-equal supports
(you may have heard that term before). It naturally defines 10-note
decatonic scales, as meantone naturally defines 7-note heptatonic
scales. So a layout based around pajara will define a subtly different
way of thinking about harmony, even in 12-TET, and can open up some
interesting musical possibilities that one might not ordinarily see.
Then, if you ever want to switch to 22-TET, which is one of the better
equal temperaments that nature has gifted us with, you can just use
the same layout and most everything will just translate over without a
hitch.

There are, again, an infinite number of isomorphic layouts that one
can define around pajara, so perhaps adding a few of them might be
worthwhile. I can't find the picture of Carl's layout now, so maybe he
can repost it. Pajara-based layouts would be good as a bridge from
12-tet to 22-tet, because of the tuning-invariant properties of
generalized keyboards.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > > You're right, it is Sonome. I meant more that I didn't like that the
> > > hexagonal keys were aligned in rows and columns, instead of rotated at
> > > an angle like a Bosanquet layout would be - it would probably make it
> > > weird to play octaves.

Take a look at the keyboard again. If you hold it vertically, then yes you'd run of the edge with Bosanquet. But rotating the layout just 30 degrees clockwise gives you a slanted keyboard that actually fits the Bosanquet layout perfectly, giving you over two octaves.

I'd definitely look into the AXiS. The button shape might night be ideal for Bosanquet style playing, but everything else works.

John M

Hi,
in this case, I mean 12 TET systems only,
Brian Hayden's thoughts are summarized here:
http://sites.google.com/site/altkeyboards/instruments/isomorphic-keyboar\
ds/hayden
and he argues that there is actually less than one would think:
So the only possible fundamentally different consist keyboards are as
follows in the order G, L, D:- (1) 2, 1, 1. (2) 3, 1, 2. (3) 4, 1, 3.
(4) 5, 1, 4. (5) 5, 2, 3. (6) 6, 1, 5. (7) 7, 1, 6. (8) 7, 2, 5. (9) 7,
3, 4. Higher intervals than 7 do not generate useful keyboards, I won't
list all these, with the notable exception of (24) 12, 5, 7. And of
course simply a single run of semitones which I shall call - (0) 1.
Brett Park posted this:
http://sites.google.com/site/altkeyboards/instruments/isomorphic-keyboar\
ds
he names the "Gerhard" and the Park systems, but does not do any deep
evaluation of the pros and cons. I argue that the honor of naming should
go to the person(s) that do the heavy lifting of describing a system in
such detail that someone can confidently reproduce the results.

Ken.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:55 PM, musicscienceguy <krushton@...>
wrote:
> >
> > You can try any tuning you want - there are several un-researched
ones.
> >
> > Try one out, document well it's pros and cons, and I will propose
that it be named after you. Since I have the primary (only) website on
the web documenting such things, you have a clear shot at immortality.
;)
> >
> > Ken.
>
> What do you mean any tuning - you mean any generalized keyboard
> layout? If so, there's been a lot of research done on this list about
> that sort of thing... An infinite number of isomorphic 2d layouts
> exist for any tuning system (of rank < 2, don't worry about what this
> means), even ones where three major thirds doesn't bring you to the
> octave and so on.
>
> Carl had an interesting one based around something called "Pajara
> temperament" which works in 12-equal, although 22-equal is a better
> tuning for it. That might be worth adding to your collection.
>
> Pajara is another underlying temperament that 12-equal "supports,"
> just as "meantone" is an underlying temperament that 12-equal supports
> (you may have heard that term before). It naturally defines 10-note
> decatonic scales, as meantone naturally defines 7-note heptatonic
> scales. So a layout based around pajara will define a subtly different
> way of thinking about harmony, even in 12-TET, and can open up some
> interesting musical possibilities that one might not ordinarily see.
> Then, if you ever want to switch to 22-TET, which is one of the better
> equal temperaments that nature has gifted us with, you can just use
> the same layout and most everything will just translate over without a
> hitch.
>
> There are, again, an infinite number of isomorphic layouts that one
> can define around pajara, so perhaps adding a few of them might be
> worthwhile. I can't find the picture of Carl's layout now, so maybe he
> can repost it. Pajara-based layouts would be good as a bridge from
> 12-tet to 22-tet, because of the tuning-invariant properties of
> generalized keyboards.
>
> -Mike
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:55 PM, musicscienceguy krushton@... wrote:
> >
> > You can try any tuning you want - there are several un-researched
ones.
> >
> > Try one out, document well it's pros and cons, and I will propose
that it be named after you. Since I have the primary (only) website on
the web documenting such things, you have a clear shot at immortality.
;)
> >
> > Ken.
>
> What do you mean any tuning - you mean any generalized keyboard
> layout? If so, there's been a lot of research done on this list about
> that sort of thing... An infinite number of isomorphic 2d layouts
> exist for any tuning system (of rank < 2, don't worry about what this
> means), even ones where three major thirds doesn't bring you to the
> octave and so on.
>
> Carl had an interesting one based around something called "Pajara
> temperament" which works in 12-equal, although 22-equal is a better
> tuning for it. That might be worth adding to your collection.
>
> Pajara is another underlying temperament that 12-equal "supports,"
> just as "meantone" is an underlying temperament that 12-equal supports
> (you may have heard that term before). It naturally defines 10-note
> decatonic scales, as meantone naturally defines 7-note heptatonic
> scales. So a layout based around pajara will define a subtly different
> way of thinking about harmony, even in 12-TET, and can open up some
> interesting musical possibilities that one might not ordinarily see.
> Then, if you ever want to switch to 22-TET, which is one of the better
> equal temperaments that nature has gifted us with, you can just use
> the same layout and most everything will just translate over without a
> hitch.
>
> There are, again, an infinite number of isomorphic layouts that one
> can define around pajara, so perhaps adding a few of them might be
> worthwhile. I can't find the picture of Carl's layout now, so maybe he
> can repost it. Pajara-based layouts would be good as a bridge from
> 12-tet to 22-tet, because of the tuning-invariant properties of
> generalized keyboards.
>
> -Mike
>