source file: mills2.txt Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 00:09:53 -0800 Subject: RE: Reply to Pat Missin From: Daniel Wolf <106232.3266@compuserve.com> You wrote: '' 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. You wrote: ''The real test, Daniel, is to start with a just minor triad in sine waves, and then, without looking at the numbers, and starting far away from the target pitch, try to tune a fourth sine wave to the /7 or 17 purely by ear. If you can do the former with anywhere near the accuracy with which you can do the latter, I'll eat my hat.'' As the folks here say: Guten appetit! I tested all of this with my Rayna and a HP sine wave generator. I may be a biased test subject, however, in that I have really ear trained though ratios of 17. But this kind of bias is always a problem for me: what do you really intend by ''prefer''? Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:14 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA09026; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:58:54 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA08996 Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id PAA03544; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:58:28 -0800 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:58:28 -0800 Message-Id: <32E2C272.1270@interlinx.qc.ca> Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu