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 S 76000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550 6600 6650 6700 6750 6800 6850 6900 6950
6750 - 6775 -
Message: 6775 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:36:31 Subject: Re: Esurientes implevit from Bach's Magnificat From: Carl Lumma >>>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? -C.
Message: 6777 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 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 10:59:29 Subject: Re: Esurientes implevit from Bach's Magnificat From: Carl Lumma >> Does 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: 6781 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 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: 6788 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 12.023 You can do instead 0 equal 12 1197.7 Manuel
Message: 6791 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 * > > > > > > > > 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 * > >
Message: 6793 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 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: 6799 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 1197.7 Does 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 -