This is an Opt In Archive . We would like to hear from you if you want your posts included. For the contact address see About this archive. All posts are copyright (c).
- Contents - Hide Contents - Home - Section 76000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550 6600 6650 6700 6750 6800 6850 6900 6950
6750 - 6775 -
Message: 6775 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:36:31 Subject: Re: Esurientes implevit from Bach's Magnificat From: Carl Lumma>>> >ere's the Scala .scl file. To get the 12-et version, simply change >>> the line "0 equal 133" to "0 equal 132". >>>> That's a .seq file, no? >>Sorry, yes! Scala will convert it to a midi file if you save it as >something.scl, load an abitrary scale file, and under "tools" invoke >the transform to midi file.Sure, but how many pitches does it require, and which ones did you use for magni133.mid? -C.
Message: 6776 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:16:07 Subject: Re: Esurientes implevit from Bach's Magnificat From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>>>> Here's the Scala .scl file. To get the 12-et version, simply change >>>> the line "0 equal 133" to "0 equal 132". >>>>>> That's a .seq file, no? >>>> Sorry, yes! Scala will convert it to a midi file if you save it as >> something.scl, load an abitrary scale file, and under "tools" invoke >> the transform to midi file. >> Sure, but how many pitches does it require, and which ones did you > use for magni133.mid?I didn't count them, but it would be the same number for both, because I'm using the same numbers and only interpreting them differently (as either 132 or 133 et.) Of course from a goofed-up midi standard perspective, the two situations are quite different.
Message: 6777 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 16:42:40 Subject: Re: Esurientes implevit from Bach's Magnificat From: Carl Lumma>I didn't count them, but it would be the same number for both, because >I'm using the same numbers and only interpreting them differently (as >either 132 or 133 et.) Of course from a goofed-up midi standard >perspective, the two situations are quite different.Does this mean the 132-et version is not in 12-et? Looks like I should learn how to use seq files... ...what the hell is a "ladder"? Manuel, have you considered making a seq_format.html file? In the meantime, what are these numbers... a......b...c.. 1 note 253 120 I'm guessing... a= timestamp b= degrees of scale, including octaves??? c= duration -Carl
Message: 6778 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:59:29 Subject: Re: Esurientes implevit from Bach's Magnificat From: Carl Lumma>> >oes this mean the 132-et version is not in 12-et? >>Certainly it is.Thanks. It sure sounded like it.>> Looks like I should learn how to use seq files... >> >> ...what the hell is a "ladder"? Manuel, have you considered making >> a seq_format.html file? >>Eh? What are you referring to?The help for "example" talks about "ladders".>> In the meantime, what are these numbers... >> >> a......b...c.. >> 1 note 253 120 >> >> I'm guessing... >> >> a= timestamp >> b= degrees of scale, including octaves??? >> c= duration > >Exactly. Thanks. -C.
Message: 6779 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 19:49:13 Subject: Re: Esurientes implevit from Bach's Magnificat From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> Manuel could probably easily add an octave > adjuster to Scala retuning, actually.i thought it already had one.
Message: 6780 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:34:49 Subject: Re: Esurientes implevit from Bach's Magnificat From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>> I didn't count them, but it would be the same number for both, because >> I'm using the same numbers and only interpreting them differently (as >> either 132 or 133 et.) Of course from a goofed-up midi standard >> perspective, the two situations are quite different. >> Does this mean the 132-et version is not in 12-et?Certainly it is. Each note is 11 times what it would be if I had asked Scala to render a normal 12-et file. In general, if you take a Scala file in n-et, multiply each note by an integer m, and then change the header so that you are in n*m et, the result is exactly the same. If you change the header so that you are in n*m+1 or n*m-1 et, you get octave-adjusted renditions. Manuel could probably easily add an octave adjuster to Scala retuning, actually.> Looks like I should learn how to use seq files... > > ...what the hell is a "ladder"? Manuel, have you considered making > a seq_format.html file?Eh? What are you referring to?> In the meantime, what are these numbers... > > a......b...c.. > 1 note 253 120 > > I'm guessing... > > a= timestamp > b= degrees of scale, including octaves??? > c= duration Exactly.
Message: 6781 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:22:21 Subject: Re: Doing 12-equal within 133-et From: Manuel Op de Coul Gene, I don't understand why you're using 132-et note numbers in the seq file. Why not use 12-et note numbers and change the current scale to whatever temperament you want to produce?>It's the conversion of a seq to a midi file which is the problem.Not if you convert it to a 12-tet midi file first. Manuel
Message: 6782 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:30:36 Subject: Re: Esurientes implevit from Bach's Magnificatt From: Manuel Op de Coul Carl wrote:>...what the hell is a "ladder"? Manuel, have you considered making >a seq_format.html file?Not a very useful feature, only plays all the notes in the scale. Haven't considered that, could be handy indeed. Manuel
Message: 6783 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:43:12 Subject: Re: Doing 12-equal within 133-et From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Manuel Op de Coul" <manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:> Gene, I don't understand why you're using 132-et note numbers > in the seq file. Why not use 12-et note numbers and change > the current scale to whatever temperament you want to produce?Because I've never gotten that to work.
Message: 6785 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:29:29 Subject: Re: Doing 12-equal within 133-et From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Manuel Op de Coul" > <manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote: >>> Gene, I don't understand why you're using 132-et note numbers >> in the seq file. Why not use 12-et note numbers and change >> the current scale to whatever temperament you want to produce?> Because I've never gotten that to work.One addition to Scala you might want to consider would be to allow non-integer values for "n" in the "equal" command of Scala; for instance along with 0 equal 12 we could do instead 0 equal 12.023 This would address the whole matter nicely.
Message: 6786 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:14:47 Subject: Re: Key book on tunning by Barbour From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carlos <garciasuarez@y...> wrote:> I am very interested in getting the book > > Tuning and temperament: A historical survey > by James Murray Barbour. > > It is out of print and can not find it any where. > > Anyone would have an idea about how to get it ?My first suggestion for any question like this is to go to a university library; many of them will give you a free library card. Your local public library also has interlibrary loan, which can turn up lots of stuff.> Anyone has read the book and liked it?It's a classic.
Message: 6788 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:46:56 Subject: Re: Doing 12-equal within 133-et From: Manuel Op de Coul Gene wrote:>Because I've never gotten that to work.Maybe you gave up too quickly. If you send me the file that doesn't work I could tell you what's wrong with it.>0 equal 12 >we could do instead >0 equal 12.023You can do instead 0 equal 12 1197.7 Manuel
Message: 6789 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 19:59:45 Subject: Re: Key book on tunning by Barbour From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carlos <garciasuarez@y...> wrote:> Anyone would have an idea about how to get it ?try interlibrary loan.> Anyone has read the book and liked it?yes, it's useful . . . i think i have a copy . . .
Message: 6790 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:26:56 Subject: Re: Doing 12-equal within 133-et From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Manuel Op de Coul" <manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:> > Gene wrote:>> Because I've never gotten that to work. >> Maybe you gave up too quickly. If you send me the file that > doesn't work I could tell you what's wrong with it.Evidently. I just managed to get it to work! This file retuned the Brahms example I had trouble with before with no problem: ! zeta12.scl ! 12 equal zeta tuning 12 ! 99.807 199.614 299.422 399.229 499.036 598.843 698.650 798.457 898.265 998.072 1097.879 1197.686>> 0 equal 12 > >> we could do instead > >> 0 equal 12.023 >> You can do instead > > 0 equal 12 1197.7Yow. Who would have guessed? Thanks!
Message: 6791 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:38:17 Subject: Re: Key book on tunning by Barbour From: monz i got both Barbour's and Lindleys by xerox copy from a university library. general procedure for out-of-print stuff that's very hard to find, like most books on tuning. Barbour's book is valuable as a very large compendium of historical tunings, most of which are given quite accurately in measurements other than cents, along with the cents values. this is good because it helps to explain the nature of the tuning. it's marred by his viewpoint that 12edo is the "best" tuning, and his historical stance is skewed by the process he uses of viewing all other tunings as approaching 12edo more-or-less well, as tho it were the goal of musical history to arrive at 12edo hegemony after a long process of trial and error. perhaps in a sense his book is even more valuable from a sociological point of view precisely *because* it adopts this perspective, which was pretty much the general perspective in Western music at the time Barbour published the book (1951). -monz ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dante Rosati" <dante.interport@xxx.xxx> To: <tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 12:27 PM Subject: RE: [tuning-math] Key book on tunning by Barbour> I got a copy a couple of years ago via www.bookfinder.com. Do a search, and > if there aren't any copies available right now, bookmark the search results > page so you can easily repeat it whenever you think of it. eventually one > will turn up. I seem to remember coughing up like $50 for the copy I got: it > is a great book though and frequently comes in very handy. > > Another option is to xerox the whole shebang at the library. If you can get > two facing pages on the scanner bed, and the copies are relatively cheap, > this can be the easiest and chepest way of having a copy of stuff like this > that is out of print and scarce. Thats what I ended up doing with Lindley's > book when there were never any copies for sale that I could find. > > Dante > >> -----Original Message----->> From: Carlos [mailto:garciasuarez@xx.xxxx >> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 2:55 PM >> To: tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx >> Subject: [tuning-math] Key book on tunning by Barbour >> >> >> I am very interested in getting the book >> >> Tuning and temperament: A historical survey >> by James Murray Barbour. >> >> It is out of print and can not find it any where. >> >> Anyone would have an idea about how to get it ? >> >> Anyone has read the book and liked it? >> >> Thanks >> >> Carlos >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >> tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx >> >> >> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to Yahoo! Terms of Service * [with cont.] (Wayb.) >> >> > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to Yahoo! Terms of Service * [with cont.] (Wayb.) > >
Message: 6792 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:41:15 Subject: Re: Key book on tunning by Barbour From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:> it's marred by his viewpoint that 12edo is the "best" > tuning,a popular misconception, i don't think that's really his viewpoint. he says meantone was best for what it was designed for. he does compare each tuning to 12-equal (and may use certain adjectives rather loosely in comparing these comparisons) but it's unfair to conclude that therefore he felt 12-equal to be best.> and his historical stance is skewed by the > process he uses of viewing all other tunings as > approaching 12edo more-or-less well, as tho it were > the goal of musical history to arrive at 12edo hegemony > after a long process of trial and error.bull$#!^. i think you need to go back and read your photocopies again. anyway, why is this on the tuning-math list and not the tuning list? carlos, are you aware that there is a broader tuning list?
Message: 6793 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:24:44 Subject: Re: Key book on tunning by Barbour From: monz hi paul, [in keeping with paul's last comment below, i've shifted this thread to the main tuning list.]> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@xxxxx.xxx> > To: <tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 2:41 PM > Subject: [tuning-math] Re: Key book on tunning by Barbour > > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "monz" <monz@a...> wrote: >>> it's marred by his viewpoint that 12edo is the "best" >> tuning, >> a popular misconception, i don't think that's really his viewpoint. > he says meantone was best for what it was designed for. he does > compare each tuning to 12-equal (and may use certain adjectives > rather loosely in comparing these comparisons) but it's unfair to > conclude that therefore he felt 12-equal to be best. >>> and his historical stance is skewed by the >> process he uses of viewing all other tunings as >> approaching 12edo more-or-less well, as tho it were >> the goal of musical history to arrive at 12edo hegemony >> after a long process of trial and error. >> bull$#!^. i think you need to go back and read your photocopies again.well, OK ... it's true that for several years now i've only been using Barbour's book as a reference to get data on particular tunings. and altho i always end up getting so interested in what he has to say that i generally read the whole chapter instead of just the bit i need, it's been a long time since i read the whole book from cover to cover, so perhaps i am being a bit unfair to him. thanks especially for pointing out he feelings about meantone ... i'll go back and take another look at that. and anyway, of course i see the universe of tuning in my own skewed way, which is far different from Barbour's.> anyway, why is this on the tuning-math list and not the tuning list? > carlos, are you aware that there is a broader tuning list?OK, here it is on the main list. -monz
Message: 6794 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 14:35:48 Subject: n in T[n] From: Carl Lumma Gene, et al; So MOS aren't the only good n. Did we ever get a method for defining all the "good" n? Paul, how does Miracle[22] compare to Blackjack? -Carl
Message: 6795 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:15:21 Subject: Graphing chord connections in equal temperaments From: Gene Ward Smith I've put graphs of the triads in 7, 12, 19 and 22 equal, with an edge drawn whenever the triads share an interval. Unfortunately Maple did not draw 19 and 22 in a way which shows the symmetry. The 7-et graph can also be thought of as a diatonic graph. I also put up a graph for tetrads in 12-et. Checking the characteristic polynomial of this, I find that there are 240 chord triangles for 12-et tetrads, where a chord triangle means three chords, each of which shares an interval with the other chords. The graphs can be found in the "chord connection graphs" album in the "Photos" for this group.
Message: 6796 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 03:06:45 Subject: Re: n in T[n] From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:> Gene, et al; > > So MOS aren't the only good n. Did we ever get a method > for defining all the "good" n? Paul, how does Miracle[22] > compare to Blackjack? > > -Carlit has one more note :) seriously, it's not a CS, so i thought blackjack would make a better keyboard mapping for joseph who wanted like intervals to appear as like intervals on the keyboard.
Message: 6797 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 14:02:54 Subject: Re: n in T[n] From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:> Gene, et al; > > So MOS aren't the only good n. Did we ever get a method > for defining all the "good" n? Paul, how does Miracle[22] > compare to Blackjack?Miracle[22] is a 2MOS, but the interesting thing is that there are regular, "good" scales which aren't either MOS or NMOS. I don't have a theory for them.
Message: 6798 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 19:39:17 Subject: Re: n in T[n] From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>> Gene, et al; >> >> So MOS aren't the only good n. Did we ever get a method >> for defining all the "good" n? Paul, how does Miracle[22] >> compare to Blackjack? >> Miracle[22] is a 2MOS, but the interesting thing is that there are > regular, "good" scales which aren't either MOS or NMOS. I don't have a > theory for them.regular in what sense? good in what sense?
Message: 6799 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 10:00:26 Subject: Re: Doing 12-equal within 133-et From: Carl Lumma Manuel,>> 0 equal 12 > >> we could do instead > >> 0 equal 12.023 >>You can do instead > >0 equal 12 1197.7Does the .scl format support stretch/compression? IIRC the last pitch line is taken as the interval of equivalence, so instead of 2/1, we could give a cents value of 1197? -Carl
6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550 6600 6650 6700 6750 6800 6850 6900 6950
6750 - 6775 -