source file: mills2.txt Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 06:15:33 -0800 Subject: pitch bend units? From: "Kami Rousseau" 4096 is 100 cents 2048 is 50 cents 1024 is 25 cents, -4096 is -100 cents, etc. It's that simple -Kami ** I am a peach tree, ** Blossoming in a deep pit. ---------- > De : tuning@ella.mills.edu > A : Multiple recipients of list > Objet : TUNING digest 1010 > Date : 10 mars, 1997 18:49 > > TUNING Digest 1010 > > Topics covered in this issue include: > > 1) Re: A=443 ? > by rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) > 2) Dominant 7th chord = 4:5:6:7:8? > by rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) > 3) Re: Universe and Sound > by rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) > 4) Re: TUNING digest 1009 > by Johnny Reinhard > 5) pitch bend units? > by Daniel Wolf > 6) RE: pitch bend units? > by Manuel.Op.de.Coul@ezh.nl (Manuel Op de Coul) > 7) C# and Db:I said KEYS, not PITCHES > by kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk (Jonathan Walker) > 8) Re: Ancient Geeks and irrationals > by kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk (Jonathan Walker) > 9) Re: winding down on ET > by kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk (Jonathan Walker) > 10) mapping spectra > by William Sethares > 11) RE: Meaner Tones (Paul E) > by Manuel.Op.de.Coul@ezh.nl (Manuel Op de Coul) > 12) Danielou = bugger > by TONY SALINAS > 13) Re: Danielou = bugger > by kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk (Jonathan Walker) > 14) Auditory Display Conference > by John Chalmers > 15) Dynamic Timbres with MIDI and DSP. > by Stephen Alexander Ruthmann > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Topic No. 1 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:29:46 GMT > From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) > To: tuning > Subject: Re: A=443 ? > Message-ID: <336b49f1.802701832@kcbbs.gen.nz> > > Gary Morrison wrote: > > > Speaking for myself personally, I find this sort of "cosmic = > resonance" > >argument worthless, for two reasons: > > >1. You can almost certainly come up with other equally valid cosmic > >resonances. For example Lyndon LaRouch's followers claim that C=3D256Hz= > =20 > >tuning is natural because the Earth rotates around its axis at a = > frequency=20 > >equal to a (very very low) G in that tuning. (Actually that claim is = > not=20 > >true, but it does suggest a lower tuning than A=3D440Hz.) > > Agreed that there are multiple cosmic influences and we don't in all > cases know which ones are insignificant and which ones aren't. > > >2. There is almost certainly no way (zippo!) that our ears and minds = > could > >possibly be sensitive to such a thing. =20 > > Wrong! > > Our brains have a variety of different frequencies depending on > conditions, but it is now recognised that theses frequencies are related > to the Schumann resonance. Also, experiments show when we are subjected > to ELF (extra low frequency) waves which are a little slower or faster > than the typical Schumann resonance frequency our reaction times are > either slowed or speeded up. Also, strong natural 3 Hz ELF waves have > been shown to correlate strongly with accidents (confirming that our > reactions are too slow). So you see, our brains can be entrained by > natural ELF waves near the normal brain frequencies. > > When a chord is played in a key then there is also present in our brains > a frequency which is the HCF (highest common factor) of the notes > played. This frequency will often be in the ELF range and will > generally match either the key or the subdominant. > > So you see, given that both e/m and sound can entrain the brain, it is > quite possible that our brains would also feel whether these two > frequencies are in tune. > > I accept the previous comments about the variations in natural > frequencies and so it is necessary to say that there is no hard and fast > absolute rule but the relationships at a moment in time will be > important. > > -- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory -- > http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 2 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:29:49 GMT > From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) > To: tuning > Subject: Dominant 7th chord = 4:5:6:7:8? > Message-ID: <336c4f90.804140894@kcbbs.gen.nz> > > Andrew Milne wrote: > > >If the 7th in a dominant 7th chord is tuned to 7/4, then it loses its > >dissonance and instability. Indeed such a chord can function as a tonic > >(as it does, quite exceptionally for the time, in Chopin's 22nd > >Prelude). > > Even if perfectly tuned, the 4:5:6:7:8 chord is more tense than the > 4:5:6:8 chord. Certainly it is still more so if the 7 is something > else, as you say. I acknowledge that sometimes composers want "out of > tune" chords for effect. > > These are not good reasons to deny ourselves the possibility of the > 4:5:6:7:8 chord however and I like the idea of it being available. > > -- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory -- > http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 3 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 00:29:52 GMT > From: rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) > To: tuning > Subject: Re: Universe and Sound > Message-ID: <336e5402.805278802@kcbbs.gen.nz> > > Gary Morrison wrote: > > > Interesting... It would be curious to hear the chords produced by = > the > >absorption patterns of various chemical elements and compounds, after > >transposing them down some enormous number of octaves. =20 > > > Were I to guess though, it would be little more than a curiosity. I > >personally doubt if they would have any particularly significant meaning= > to > >our ears. The two physical/physiological mechanisms are far too = > unrelated > >for there to be much correlation. =20 > > =46or the simple part of the Hydrogen spectrum explained by Rydberg etc, > the frequency ratios are 1:4:9:16... which would be quite pleasant and > under some circumstances the differences between these frequencies also > (3, 7, 9, 12, etc) which is still quite tolerable. > > =46or heavier elements like Iron which have many many more frequencies I > suspect that it would sound like heavy metal :-) > > Hey, I got to crack that joke twice in 3 days (I used at the anvil > chorus on Saturday). There was a big concert for the opening of a large > new stadium near here (mainly for rugby). The highlight of the night > (which was all very spectacular) was when they did the "Dance of the > Diggers" to honour the people who worked on the project. This consisted > of two large digging machines, lit by an erie light against the dark > sky, doing a wonderfully elegant dance to the music of Swan Lake. They > did an amazing job and at the end the digger operaters took a bow in > full evening dress. They got an ovation. > > In another post in this thread, based on my statement:=20 > >" If the substance of the universe, the aether, is taken as a > >medium then the speed of sound in the aether is what we know as light > >The aether is very high tensile stuff). So these two statements are in > >agreement." > > Gary Morrison wrote: > > I suppose there's not much point in getting into the well-accepted = > fact > >that the aether has been found not to exist in any physical sense, or at > >least not as the medium that light "makes waves in" as it was originally > >theorized. =20 > > It is only well accepted by people who don't understand it. The people > who made the dicoveries that are supposed to have discredited the ether, > namely Einstein, Michelson, Lorentz etc, all continued to believe in an > ether. If you doubt this, read Einstein's speech on the subject > delivered in 1920. It is on the WWW, just search for "einstein ether". > There is no reason not to believe in an ether (except fashion). > > -- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory -- > http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 4 > > Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 19:34:41 -0500 (EST) > From: Johnny Reinhard > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Re: TUNING digest 1009 > Message-ID: > > There is no concept of absolute pitch in Bach's time. Ellis discovereda > myriad of pitch diversity as a result of collecting Baroque-era tuning > forks. Arthur Mendel spent his lifetime trying to discern the basis of > pitch in Bach's music, only to realize there was none at all. > > Johnny Reinhard > American Festival of Microtonal Music > 318 East 70th Street, Suite 5FW > New York, New York 10021 USA > (212)517-3550/fax (212) 517-5495 > reinhard@ios.com > > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 5 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 02:13:26 -0500 > From: Daniel Wolf > To: "INTERNET:tuning@eartha.m" > Subject: pitch bend units? > Message-ID: <199703100213_MC2-1257-EC6B@compuserve.com> > > Are MIDI pitch bend units for soundcards standardized? If so, what is the > value, if not, what is the Soundblaster value? > > Thanks! > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 6 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:36 +0100 > From: Manuel.Op.de.Coul@ezh.nl (Manuel Op de Coul) > To: tuning@eartha > Subject: RE: pitch bend units? > Message-ID: <009B10CFC1888FA2.6236@vbv40.ezh.nl> > > Yes, the default pitch bend range is standardised to +- 200 cents. > Many instruments allow this range to be changed, but the way to do that > is not specified in the MIDI standard. > The allowed values are 0 .. 16383 or, if you take the offset of 8192 into > account, -8192 .. 8191. A change of 100 cents corresponds to 4096. > The Soundblaster conforms to this range. > If you give the command SET ATTRIBUTE PITCH_BEND to Scala, it gives the > relative pitch bends for the nearest semitone, in the range > -2048..2047. > > Manuel Op de Coul coul@ezh.nl > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 7 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:28:31 +0000 > From: kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk (Jonathan Walker) > To: tuning > Subject: C# and Db:I said KEYS, not PITCHES > Message-ID: <3323F05F.27E0@cavehill.dnet.co.uk> > > Gary Morrison wrote: > > > > I'm jumping into this conversation in mid-course, so I may well be > > missing the context. If so, my apologies. > > I'm afraid you are; but this isn't the only problem. > > > A previous writer, quoted by Gary Morrison, wrote: > > > > "ergo, the distinction between C# and Db makes sense > > _only_ in well temperament. But of course, you can't > > set two different temperaments at once, at least not > > on a piano." > > In what we earthlings call "well-temperament", there is no possible > distinction between C# and Db -- everyone knows this on our planet. The > well-tempered systems were specifically designed for a 12-note per > octave keyboard; they were WELL-tempered specifically because they > removed the wolf of the meantone temperaments, and this was by means of > closing the "circle" of fifths. No closed temperament offering only 12 > pitch classes can possibly distinguish between and C# and Db -- this is > a bland truism on planet earth. > > > Then Gary Morrison himself: > > > Welll... > > > > Certainly C# and Db are different in meantone temperaments and just > > intonation as well as in well temperaments. And also in 17TET, 19TET > > and 31TET as well. > > Meantone, yup. > > Just intonation, sure thing. Pythagorean too. > > 19TET and 31TET, if you treat them as closures of 1/3-comma and > 1/4-comma meantone, yessir. 17TET, I suppose, can also be regarded as > the closure of a chain of fifths. > > But well-temperament? NO! (in 72-point Gothic font) > > What's going on here? Has someone just devised an all new well-tempered > scheme for >12 pitch classes? > > > But even if they are tuned exactly the same as they are in 12TET or > > 24TET, the two notes are functionally different. C# is nominally the > > leading tone in the key of D, and Db ... well, Db could be a number of > > formulations, like the seventh of a dominant seventh in the key of Ab, > > or the root of a Neapolitan in C. > > For the record, when I introduced this Beethoven example, I said that he > was talking about KEYS and not single pitches. I was saying that > Beethoven distinguished various keys, assigning them characteristics of > their own, and that we might be tempted to guess that well-temperament > was the main or sole cause of Beethoven's distinctions. But then I said > that we cannot simply ignore one of his distinctions, namely between C# > major and Db major; since this distinction cannot arise in any > well-temperament, Beethoven's thinking must have been motivated, at > least in part by less concrete considerations, such as the accumulated > associations of certain keys with certain pieces, or the association of > certain instruments with their most congenial keys, or relational > associations depending on the difference between modulating in a > flat-wards direction and in a sharp-wards direction. This is only a > paraphrase of what I said in two earlier messages. > > -- > Jonathan Walker > Queen's University Belfast > mailto:kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk > http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/~walker/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 8 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:06:24 +0000 > From: kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk (Jonathan Walker) > To: tuning > Subject: Re: Ancient Geeks and irrationals > Message-ID: <3323F940.D9C@cavehill.dnet.co.uk> > > Jonathan Wild wrote: > > > "Repugnance" towards irrationals was strictly limited to disciplines > > regarded as subordinate to mathematics. Look at the Greek quadrivium > > to see how music fits in: > > > > MATHEMATICS GEOMETRY > > (number) (magnitude) > > > > MUSIC ASTRONOMY > > (number as embodied (magnitude as embodied > > in sound) in celestial motion) > > > > The schism between the sciences dealing with the discrete vs those > > dealing with the continuous (number vs magnitude) was a huge factor > > in the development of mathematical methods.[etc.] > > Many thanks to Jonathan Wild for such a fine posting, which has brought > the thread, I would imagine, near to a consensual close. I'll confess I > was feeling a little guilty at having addressed only Paul Erlich's > general statement about Greeks and irrationals, without moving on to > their treatment of music, where, for the reasons Jonathan has given, > irrationals were indeed shunned. I would still maintain, of course, that > if the Greeks had broken their quadrivial constraints, and tried to > reinterpret Aristoxenus in terms of irrational equal divisions, the 30th > root of 4/3 would have been by far the most likely choice of a basic > unit. The fact that when this break was eventually made, in the 16th > century, Aristoxenus was taken to be the father of 12TET, reflects the > needs of Renaissance theorists, and not those of Greek antiquity. > Aristoxenus was needed as a precedent, to justify the abandonment of > numerus sonorus dogma; without citing a precedent, these ideas could, in > the intellectual environment of the times, have been summarily > dismissed. Renaissance theorists were therefore primarily interested in > the use that could be made of Aristoxenus to serve their purposes; the > truth of their interpretation of Aristoxenus was only a secondary > consideration. > > -- > Jonathan Walker > Queen's University Belfast > mailto:kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk > http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/~walker/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 9 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:39:25 +0000 > From: kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk (Jonathan Walker) > To: tuning > Subject: Re: winding down on ET > Message-ID: <33240F0D.27CE@cavehill.dnet.co.uk> > > Ed Foote (A440A@aol.com) wrote: > > > Hmmmm. I am a lot less interested in winning an argument than I > > am in learning all I can about the history and application of tuning. > > I would hope that the nature of these interchanges doesn't become so > > adversarial as to limit that. > > Sorry if you misunderstood academic manners -- an "adversarial" stance > is adopted only in order to sharpen arguments (granted, the temperature > can rise somewhat if a lucidly stated argument is distorted). > Furthermore, I've strongly hinted before that I'm playing devil's > advocate -- I'm not against what you say, but I want to hear the best > possible arguments for the case, so that even the most dogged and > sceptical supporter of the 18th-century ET thesis will be convinced. > > > > Walker asks; > > > if ET was well-nigh impossible in the 18th century, as you > > >argue, how come it was in popular use for lutes and viols during the > > >16th century? > > The placement of frets, by linear measurement, is a piece of cake > > compared to tuning by string tension. According to Jorgenson, this > > was mentioned by Mersenne, in his Harmonie Universelle, when he states > > that the equal division of the octave could not be formed on spinets, > > as the string tension had to be judged by ear. > > Here's an example, I think, of the adversarial game drawing out a better > argument. In reply, I suppose one might ask why a fretted string > instrument could not then be used as a point of reference by the > keyboard tuner. But otherwise I'm satisfied on this matter. > > > However, to say that I am trying to "label anything with > > noticeable differences a well-temperament" does something of a > > disservice to my intentions. These well-temperaments were very > > specific constructions, I use my term "Harmonic Toolbox" to describe. > > what they were offering composersThis supposes that the levels of > > tempering were carefully selected, not just a helter-skelter of missed > > thirds. > > So what you would want to establish is that 18th-century keyboard tuners > considered the achievement of ET, accurate beyond audible margins of > error, considered such a hopeless task that it was not worth attempting. > If so, I trust that we would eventually be able to find some recorded > statements to this effect. > > > >[JW] forgive me if I'm disinclined to > > >accept any far-reaching thesis purely on the grounds that the ears of > > >some (no doubt able) musician have convinced him of its truth. > > > > This thesis is not, in all fairness, based purely on the the ears. > > The opinions formed by listening have a substantial amount of > > historical support, do they not? I was originally listening to well > > temperaments with the skepticism of one who had heard and tuned > > nothing but ET for many years, but could find no reasons to disbelieve > > the temperaments, ( Schubert too!) > > > > >[JW again] What of the converse: would you like to say that anyone > > >whose stomach doesn't churn at the sound of Beethoven in ET lacks > > some essentials of when I first heard Beethoven played in >musicianship? > > > > Yes, I would like to say that, but I can't. Churn is too strong a > > word. What I can say is that after pianists that I work with have > > become acquainted with the difference in temperament for Beethoven, > > they all prefer something other than ET. > > I'm afraid that this, and much else that you've said, goes no further > than to say that well-temperament was a possibility for this music. But > I never argued with this. What I was asking you to do, rather, was to > back up your categorical statement that equal temperament was _not_ used > at all (as a keyboard tuning) in Germany/Austria c.1800. I suspect by > now that you said all you can on this matter, and I thank you for this. > > My concern is simply that there is not so far any case which would > withstand scrutiny as an academic paper; since your interests are > practical rather than academic, you may not be worried by this. But it > will prove a difficult task, since at present revisionists such as > Rudolf Rasch, are (as Manuel Op de Coul reminded us) prepared even to > say that Bach might indeed have intended the WTK for equal temperament, > notwithstanding all that has been argued to the contrary. If respected > academics are still prepared to place ET (as a keyboard tuning) back > even as far as the 1720s, there is a great deal to be done before we can > hope to establish the counter-thesis that ET didn't begin to emerge as a > practical possibility (for keyboards) until at least a century later. > Whatever the merits of Rasch's case, there is a very long way to go > before the historical case for the prevalence of well-temperament into > the 19th century has been established. There are two routes by which we > can attack the consensual thesis that ET was well-nigh universal in > Germany/Austria by 1800: one is to provide convincing documentary > evidence to the contrary from contemporary sources (I've still seen > nothing in this respect); the other is to shift the burden of proof onto > those following the consensual thesis, by demonstrating that ET was so > far beyond the capabilities of 18th-century tuners that its supposed > establishment by 1800 is most improbable (you have said a couple of > things which move in this direction). Does anyone know of more material, > or can anyone suggest further arguments which would contribute to either > of these possible lines of attack? > > > >Was Chopin (advocate of ET, as I've said before) less than > > >a true musician? > > No, but Chopin was not composing music in the time of Mozart and > > Beethoven, I assume he cut his teeth on a lot less meantone than > > Beethoven, or Mozart. > > Meantone? Yes, probably 1/6-comma from good string players, and on some > keyboards (it was Silbermann's choice), but I thought we were talking > about well temperament. Was this a typo? > > In any case, would you agree then that for music which modulates freely, > but which remains locally diatonic in most passages (as in Beethoven), > well-temperaments are best, but where local chromaticism becomes more > prevalent (as in later Chopin), then equal temperament is more > satisfactory? > > > (For a real treat, listen to his Opus 28 > > preludes performed on a DeMorgan temperament. It is a very different > > music indeed, and it could have happened!) > > Definitely a typo here (op. 39 Preludes "durch alle Tonarten"). The date > of composition is thought to have been 1789 -- certainly a later Bonn > work -- so the opus number, 39, is misleading in this respect. In this > case, even if (contrary to your view) ET was prevalent by 1800, there is > still a fairly high probability that in relatively provincial Bonn, well > temperament would still have been much in evidence at this date. Tuning > matters aside, I find it particularly interesting that the two preludes > traverse the circuit of keys in different ways: the first reaches C# > major by fifths, then manages to reverse all of this and more in a > wonderful chromatic passage to arrive on a genuine Db major (genuine in > the sense that it is not just a notational convenience), whereupon the > fifths sequence resumes until the final (genuine) C major is reached. > The second prelude, maintains the fifths sequence throughout, and passes > through the cycle twice, so removing changes due to notational > convenience, we pass from C major to A*# major. The first prelude even > manages to maintain a high level of inventiveness, and deserves to be > heard more often on the concert platform. > > -- > Jonathan Walker > Queen's University Belfast > mailto:kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk > http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/~walker/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 10 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 11:26:20 -0600 > From: William Sethares > To: tuning > Subject: mapping spectra > Message-ID: <199703101726.AA06357@eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu> > > > A recent thread reads: > > " Each chemical element is uniquely identifiable in the > electromagnetic spectrum by its special set of unique frequencies. > These frequency sets interact to produce more complexly unique > cycle frequencies, which are unheard by human ear but which > resonate just as do humanly hearable musical chords or dissonances." > > to which Gary M. replied... > > Interesting... It would be curious to hear the chords produced by > the absorption patterns of various chemical elements and > compounds, after transposing them down some enormous number of > octaves. Were I to guess though, it would be little more than a > curiosity. I personally doubt if they would have any particularly > significant meaning to our ears. The two physical/physiological > mechanisms are far too unrelated for there to be much correlation. > > A few years ago, Tom Staley and I wrote an article called "Sounds of > Crystals" in Experimental Musical Instruments (EMI) that did > something very similar (ref. below). We looked at x-ray diffraction > patterns (spectra) and mapped them into the audio spectra. Many of > the resulting sounds were exceedingly complex (*very* many > nonharmonic partials), but there were some real standouts. One of > our favorites was the sound of the morphine crystal, which we used > for a piece titled "Duet for Morphine and Crystal" that appeared in > the EMI compilation cassette that year. > > Though it can be an interesting way of generating "new" sounds, I > would agree with Gary's assessment that there is nothing inherently > significant about the sounds - for instance - the effects of listening to > the morphine derived sounds in no way have the same effects as > consumption of the material itself. > > In the same issue of EMI, there is also an article by Susan Alejander > called DNA tunings that uses data from DNA sequences to generate > interesting tunings that she then plays on a synth. > > W. A. Sethares and T. Staley, ``Sounds of crystals,'' Experimental > Musical Instruments, Vol. VIII, No. 2, Sept. (1992). > > and > > S. Alexjander, ``DNA tunings,'' Experimental Musical Instruments, Vol. > VIII, No. 2, Sept. (1992). > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 11 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:55 +0100 > From: Manuel.Op.de.Coul@ezh.nl (Manuel Op de Coul) > To: tuning@eartha > Subject: RE: Meaner Tones (Paul E) > Message-ID: <009B110D18CFE75F.6887@vbv40.ezh.nl> > > From: PAULE > > John Chalmers has derived some meantone tunings using the augmented sixth as > the approximation to the harmonic seventh. But what if, more relevant to > modern practice, the minor seventh must approximate the harmonic seventh, > the minor third must approximate the 7:6, and the diminished fifth must > approximate the 7:5? Add terms for these to the usual 5-limit terms, and the > following "optimal" tunings are found: > > Equal-weighted: > Fifth=(43+(log(3)+13*log(5)-11*log(7))/log(2))/75 octaves, or > 702.2260 cents > > Limit-weighted: > Fifth=(2075+(81*log(3)+469*log(5)-539*log(7))/log(2))/3035 octaves, or > 703.4736 cents > > So if one wants a diatonic system with optimal dominant seventh (and > half-diminished seventh, if you subscribe to some form of duality) chords, > one must use fifths slightly _larger_ than pure. > > -Paul > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 12 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:24:14 +0000 (GMT) > From: TONY SALINAS > To: EARTHA > Subject: Danielou = bugger > Message-ID: > > With all the respect for all his work done, his assumptions > are considered an offence for some Indian music theorists. > > Tony Salinas > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 13 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:43:42 +0000 > From: kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk (Jonathan Walker) > To: tuning > Subject: Re: Danielou = bugger > Message-ID: <3324565E.4C33@cavehill.dnet.co.uk> > > TONY SALINAS wrote: > > > > With all the respect for all his work done, his assumptions > > are considered an offence for some Indian music theorists. > > On what grounds? > > -- > Jonathan Walker > Queen's University Belfast > mailto:kollos@cavehill.dnet.co.uk > http://www.music.qub.ac.uk/~walker/ > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 14 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 10:51:42 -0800 (PST) > From: John Chalmers > To: tuning > Subject: Auditory Display Conference > Message-ID: > > International Community for Auditory Display > > This might be of interest to Tuning List'ers as sonification, > aka Auditory Display, is a possible commercial application of > the type of material we work with. For example, converting mass > spec or IR spectra to sound sometimes makes recognition easier > as some people's acoustic pattern recognition ability is superior > to their visual. The resulting sounds when presented seriatim become > non-just, non-ET scales and when presented simultaneously, non-harmonic > timbres. > > > The notice (forwarded I think from the IMCA mailing list): > > ICAD '97, is a program of the International Community for Auditory > Display. ICAD is a not-for-profit corporation created to support > research, education and community formation in the emerging field of > auditory display. The primary projects of ICAD are the conferences, the > listserve (icad-request@santafe.edu) and the ICAD Web site > (http://www.santafe.edu/~icad). Since auditory display researchers come > from a wide variety of disciplinary, professional, and geographical > backgrounds, ICAD seeks, above all, to facilitate communication across > boundaries. A membership organization founded in 1996, ICAD welcomes > participation in its programs and governance. For more information > about ICAD please contact Gregory Kramer at kramer@listen.com. > > about ICAD please contact Gregory Kramer at kramer@listen.com. > CALL FOR PARTICIPATION > ICAD '97: > The Fourth > International Conference on Auditory Display > Palo Alto, California > Dates: November 2-5, 1997 > > Sponsored by: > Xerox Palo Alto Research Center > > > --John > > > > ------------------------------ > > Topic No. 15 > > Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:09:45 -0500 (EST) > From: Stephen Alexander Ruthmann > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Dynamic Timbres with MIDI and DSP. > Message-ID: > > Hi. Does anyone on the list know of any research into dynamic timbral > changes of an electronic sound fed by continuous controls generated by > an acoustic instrument in real time? I've been interested in achieving > this on the French Horn and wondered if anyone had heard of this before? > I realize the physical problems with tis but I think DSP might provide the > answer. Any help would be appreciated. > -Alex Ruthmann > > ************************************************************************* > * * "Some Scientists claim that hydrogen, * > * Alex Ruthmann * because it is so plentiful, is the basic * > * sruthman@umich.edu * building block of the universe. I dispute* > * http://www-personal.umich* that. I say there is more stupidity than * > * .edu/~sruthman * hydrogen, and that is the basic building * > * * block of the universe." -Frank Zappa * > ************************************************************************* > * -> Horn Performance and Engineering Major * > * -> Undergraduate Research Assistant in Frank Zappology and Schlepping* > * University of Michigan-Ann Arbor -- Schools of Music and Engineering * > ************************************************************************* > > > ------------------------------ > > End of TUNING Digest 1010 > ************************* Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:06 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03263; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:06:11 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03261 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) id JAA13729; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:04:40 -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:04:40 -0800 Message-Id: <009B129761E537D5.6B91@vbv40.ezh.nl> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu