source file: m1395.txt
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:45:46 -0500

Subject: RE: JI Tuning Resolution

From: "Loffink, John" <John.Loffink@COMPAQ.com>

> 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?
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Ultimately, you have to use your ears. If you hear beating/phasing between
> a
> given pair of frequencies, then something's off. 
> 
Could you give me a rough figure in terms of Hertz/CPS or even beats per
minute/hour/day/year/millenium?  :-)  I realize the issue with beating, but
not everyone doing just intonation feels you need 100% beatless harmonies,
especially if one is doing band/orchestral type music.  This question is
open to all list members using synthesizers/samplers:  how much pitch
resolution does your own music need?

>  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.  
> 
Synthesizer manufacturers say 1 cent resolution is good enough because:
1.  They don't understand the concepts of just intonation very well and...
2.  No one has ever quantified what tuning resolution is good enough.  I've
heard many times that 1 cent resolution is poor, but I've never heard in
terms of cents or Hertz what _was sufficient.  If .003 Hz is what it takes
to make someone happy, then I suggest a system like Kyma, as mass market
manufacturers are unlikely to implement so fine a resolution.  However, if
0.1 or 0.05 Hz is good enough for microtonalists and current technology is
0.5 Hz resolution, then synthesizer manufacturers may be willing to improve
their systems to that extent and we have something to work with.

> From: Paul Hahn <Paul-Hahn@library.wustl.edu>
> 
> > If this is the case then why are there so many complaints about
> synthesizer
> > 1 cent tuning accuracy when acoustic musicians can't do any better?
> 
> Because pianos, organs, and harpsichords can do _much_ better.
> 
What is the best resolution one can expect, either in terms of cents or
Hertz?

> From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison)
> 
> >If this is the case then why are there so many complaints about
> synthesizer
> >1 cent tuning accuracy when acoustic musicians can't do any better?
> 
>    Well, we're clearly asking for more than you can realistically expect
> of
> a human performer (on an indefinite-pitched instrument that is).  In my
> view anyway, that's perfectly fine;  that's one of the benefits of
> technology
> 
Good answer!

> From: mr88cet@texas.net (Gary Morrison)
> 
> >I'm afraid I have to disqualify the oscilloscope here. The oscilloscope
> >will have a certain finite sampling time and the period of the waveform,
> >varying slighlty as it does, will never be precisely matched to this
> >sampling time.
> 
>    I don't know what you're getting at by introducing sampling into this,
> but you certainly don't need a digitizing oscilloscope to see this.  A
> plain, boring ol' analog scope will show it just fine.
> 
>    If you zoom it in on a single period of the tone, you see the peaks and
> troughs of the vibration bobbing up and down, and sometimes moving around
> too.  Regardless of what you attribute that to, it's certainly not a
> strictly periodic wave.
	 
This is the varying phase shift of the individual frequencies of the tone.
You are right, it has nothing to do with sampling as it's visible on an
analog oscilloscope.  You could also interpret these phase shifts as
microscopic shifts in frequencies of the harmonics.

John Loffink
jloffink@pdq.net