source file: m1398.txt
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:47:40 -0400

Subject: TUNING digest 1397

From: Daniel Wolf <DJWOLF_MATERIAL@compuserve.com>

John Loffink wrote:

''You made some valid points, but since the MIDI Tuning Standard is alrea=
dy
in divisions of 2^n, I think it would be a bad idea to promote some other=

division.  I was more interested in the desired frequency resolution.''

Perhaps you misunderstood me. If the tuning resolution is, for example, 1=

Hz, in lower registers there is going to be good intonation for the
harmonic series above 1 Hz, and all else will be rough approximations. I
think that the contrast between the exact and approximate tunings would b=
e
musically unacceptable (with a resolution of 1 Hz, try modulating from th=
e
key of 80 Hz to its subdominant!). If I can't have a tuning with the
accuracy of the Rayna, then I would like the potential deviation from Jus=
t
to be spread around as much as possible in a temperament that represents
harmonic identities consistently. As long as you are not working with
sustained textures that really require something like the Rayna, I think
that absolute frequency resolution will be secondary to consistency. I ma=
de
the suggestion that equal-tempered division of the octave divisible by 12=

be considered because, MIDI standard or not, tuning tables seem to be
expressed at the software level most often in terms of unit deviations fr=
om
12tet pitch classes, not in terms of octave divisions alone, and
manufacturers will probably be interested in supporting microtonal capaci=
ty
only when that does not eliminate an accurate 12tet. From my experience,
768tet and 1200tet are not good choices but there are ET of this magnitud=
e
that would be better.       =