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
6800 - 6825 -
Message: 6803 Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 16:10:07 Subject: Re: Doing 12-equal within 133-et From: Manuel Op de Coul Carl asked: >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? Yes indeed! Manuel
Message: 6806 Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 11:50:51 Subject: Re: Doing 12-equal within 133-et From: Manuel Op de Coul Gene wrote: >What would be really interesting would be allowing the cents values to >occur in any order. Doesn't it? >By the way, I read somewhere that Scala can produce Csound score >files. How is that done? There's an example in cmd\cs-demo.cmd. Or maybe easier if you have a midi file that you want to convert to a tuned Csound score is to use midi2cs by Rüdiger Borrmann. There's a tip about it in tips.par. Manuel
Message: 6808 Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:12:32 Subject: Re: how come i never saw this before? From: Carl Lumma >http://www.musikwissenschaft.uni-mainz.de/ * >Musikinformatik/schriftenreihe/nr45/scale.pdf You're mentioned, with a link to sonic arts. You didn't know it? >btw, what makes much more sense to me is to do multidimensional >scaling based on a rationalization of the *interval matrix*, not >the pitch matrix Indeed. >i've posted such multidimensional scaling results years ago. You did? >better yet would be to simply use the harmonic entropies of the >intervals, which i think i did in a few posts as well. You're referring to the minimum pairwise entropy posts? Those were awesome. Harmonic entropy sort of makes the idea of rationalizing a scale irrelevant. On the other hand, starting with a *temperament*, it's useful to have a method for snapping it to the lattice in a simple way, as in TM reduction. There's sooo much publishable on tuning-math . . . . . >hmm, i'm getting an idea for a movie . . . Cooool. -C.
Message: 6810 Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:52:07 Subject: Re: how come i never saw this before? From: Carl Lumma >> >better yet would be to simply use the harmonic entropies of the >> >intervals, which i think i did in a few posts as well. >> >> You're referring to the minimum pairwise entropy posts? > >no, just multidimensional scaling solutions. How should I go about finding those posts? >> Harmonic entropy sort of makes the idea of rationalizing a scale >> irrelevant. On the other hand, starting with a *temperament*, >> it's useful to have a method for snapping it to the lattice in a >> simple way, as in TM reduction. > >yeah but then you break a lot of the consonant connections. which >makes this whole "rationalization" business look pretty unhealthy to >me. Sure. -C.
Message: 6816 Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:06:24 Subject: Re: Efficicency and ambiguity From: Manuel Op de Coul >If I'm understanding Eytan Agmon's paper "Numbers and the Western >Tone-System", he is interested in MOS in an equal temperament which >are efficent and have at most one ambiguous interval. Not at most, exactly one. So your examples don't qualify. Manuel
Message: 6823 Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 12:26:27 Subject: Re: Efficicency and ambiguity From: Manuel Op de Coul >> why on earth should there be exactly one ambiguous interval? it seems >> to me that musical academia has been staring for too long at its 7- >> out-of-12-equal navel. >> these? what are these? >MOS of size (n+1)/2 within an n-et, such that n is odd and 2/n is the >generator. Yeah, those have no ambiguous interval, leaving only the even n with exactly one ambiguous interval. Manuel
6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550 6600 6650 6700 6750 6800 6850 6900 6950
6800 - 6825 -