source file: mills2.txt Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:22:37 -0800 Subject: Reply to Pat Missin From: Daniel Wolf <106232.3266@compuserve.com> Paul wrote: ''It is these sorts of experiments that lead me to quarrel with Daniel Wolf about his use of sine waves, which would invariably lead to the 10:12:15:17 solution, and never to the subharmonic one.'' This is a poor comparison (10 : 12 : 15 : 17) against ( /6 : /5 : /4 : 2/7). The first wins whether with sine waves or with strings. Try these inversions instead: (17/2 : 10 : 12 : 15 ) against ( /7 : /6 : /5 : /4 ). My own preference (and that of my three-and-a-half year old son who has heard more gamelan pelog than any other live music) in this second set whether with sine waves or more complex timbres is always for the subharmonic version. I thinkl that the inversion chosen plays a large role in the harmonic-subharmonic distinction. The 10:12:15:17 ''locks in'' to it's tuning through the doubled difference tone (5). And need I repeat for the nth time, that I chose sine waves for my spacing work to avoid the whole issue of masking tones whose spectra shared too many partials, thus obscuring which tones were fundamentals. Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 12:13 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA09221; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 06:38:54 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA09184 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id VAA12287; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:38:50 -0800 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:38:50 -0800 Message-Id: <32E293AE.1A22@sprynet.com> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu