source file: m1394.txt
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 13:26:59 +0000

Subject: Re: TUNING Resolution

From: david first <d1st@earthlink.net>

> > So what is the minimum pitch resolution that is acceptable?  Is this for
> > music comprised mostly of long sustained harmonies?
> > >
> > John Loffink
> > jloffink@pdq.net


Well - this is actually a tricky question. I make my samples in CPS, not cents
so if one is starting with a base freq of 440 then multiplying by 3/2,
5/4...27/16....3645/2048...etc., the amount of decimal places obviously
varies. But even in Partch's or Helmholtz's ratio to cents tables - both of
which employ rounding off - there are are two or three decimal places shown
for even the simplest JI ratios.
Ultimately, you have to use your ears. If you hear beating/phasing between a
given pair of frequencies, then something's off. 

To answer your second question, yes, I am talking - at least in my case -
about sustained tones. But I suppose that it goes, for me, beyond what one can
get "away with" regarding tuning. It is true that tuning errors are more
obvious in "slower" music, but isn't that the crux of the issue? Play ANY
music fast enough and I suppose the errors become negligible. 12et was, and
is, consider close enough to JI for most people. I presume the the main reason
for this forum is to explore the alternatives to the alternatives regarding
pitch and to not accept what is given as gospel whether tuning systems or
hardware. Perhaps I was a bit contentious in my original post, but I was
hoping to find out how others feel about this particular issue, and more
importantly, if and how anyone is, in fact, going beyond what the synthesizer
manufacturers are saying is good enough.  

> >    Another consideration that deserves some thought along these lines is
> > that very few acoustic instruments have their overtones within 1 cent of
> > exact harmonics.  So, if the ideal is to realize the natural sound of real
> > acoustic instruments, within 1/2 cent of exact JI ratios, then that might
> > end up somewhat like painting a bullseye with a spray can:  Your mark may
> > be centered right on the center of the target, but it might still cover a
> > quarter of the radius of the target.
> > 
> >    I am of course exaggerating to illustrate the point.  The mitigating
> > factor here is that most instruments have their lower partials closer to
> > harmonic than their higher ones, which are generally quieter.
> > 
 
This may be true, but, for me, the whole point of using electronics (when I
do), is to create better and purer relationships than one could ever achieve
with acoustic instruments. 

David First