source file: mills2.txt Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:45:06 -0800 Subject: RE: TUNING digest 960 From: PAULE >>'' Even Daniel and Little Wolf >>preferred 10 12 15 17 to /12 /10 /8 /7, despite the smaller numbers in the >>latter.*** Only in changing the comparison to 17 20 24 30 vs. /7 /6 /5 /4 >>does the subharmonic version win out. '' >Check my posting. This is NOT what I said. My overall preference is for /7 >/6 /5 /4, but in the next inversion, I prefer 10 12 15 17 to /6 /5 /4 2/7. Where is the contradiction? Note that /6 /5 /4 2/7 /12 /10 /8 /7, and that the inversion of 10 12 15 17 that is comparable to /7 /6 /5 /4 is 17 20 24 30. So didn't I get it right? Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:17 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA11838; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:17:31 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA11861 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id JAA22108; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:17:26 -0800 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 09:17:26 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu