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 65000 5050 5100 5150 5200 5250 5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950
5850 - 5875 -
Message: 5875 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 22:51:44 Subject: Re: Temperament notation From: Carl Lumma > > >What, exactly, do you mean by "septimal notation"? > > > > A notation with 7 nominals! > > What I would prefer to call a heptatonic notation. Of course; much better. >>And in harmonics 6-12, the aug 3rd and dim 4th don't function >>differently? // >It is interesting to contemplate that if we used a notation >with 12 nominals for 12-ET that we would be unable to observe >a distinction on the printed page. Exactly. >>Msg. #s 35809 and 41680. > >Thanks! I'll have to take a look. Promising technology for microtonalists, to be sure. For infinite flexibility we loose velocity and aftertouch, so we'd be stuck to organ-type patches if we wanted them to sound good. We also loose tactile feedback, which would probably make sight reading impossible. Notation could be replaced on these instruments by a 'follow the lights' approach, in which the whole key can light up, if you like! Graham, are you listening? Certainly exciting that technology exists to bring the holy grail of an infinitely configurable, extremely portable keyboard within reach of the consumer (indeed: cheap!). In the year between msg. 35809 and 41680, it went from trade-show demo to at least two companies providing OEM kits. Assuming there's a flexible inferface in there somewhere, a microtonal keyboard software project (perhaps two projectors would be needed for a full keyboard) might not be too difficult... -Carl
Message: 5878 Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 04:02:38 Subject: Re: 31, 112 and 11-limit Meantone From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@j...>" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote: > The rms (and least-fourth power) value is 7/26-comma, and the minimax value is 1/4-comma, which I would call a small difference. OK. With regard to sagittal notation, 112-ET fails the following test. (b) The best fifth (approx 2:3) in the ET must be the same as the fifth calculated by applying the temperament's mapping to the best approximation of the generator (and period) in that ET. The best fifth in 112-ET is 66 steps. The best approximation of the meantone fifth generator in 112-ET is 65 steps. I agree with George ("At last!", he says) that sagittal notation of open meantone chains of up to 30 notes should be based on 31-ET notation. 31-ET passes Gene's earlier test, of being the highest denominator of a convergent for both RMS and max-absolute generators.
Message: 5882 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:24:49 Subject: Re: thanks manuel From: manuel.op.de.coul@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx Sure, I've enjoyed it too. > so one might either be interested in the *average* >complexity of the intervals formed by the note in question from all >the other notes in the scale, or, in special cases, the complexity of >the interval formed by the note from the tonic (1/1). There's an idea, it could be added to the output of "show/attribute intervals" which I didn't show you. Manuel
Message: 5885 Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:28:29 Subject: Re: thanks manuel From: manuel.op.de.coul@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx Paul wrote: >i think it would be good to have a graphical scale analysis tool. Do you mean with a colour representation of attribute values, like in your gif picture? There are some other graphical analysis things in the to-do list already, don't think I'll get to it soon. Manuel
Message: 5889 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:31:52 Subject: Re: Poptimal generators From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan <d.keenan@u...>" > <d.keenan@u...> wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus > > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote: > > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith > > > <genewardsmith@j...>" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote: > > > > "Poptimal" is short for "p-optimal". The p here is a real variable > > > > p>=2, which is what analysts normally use when discussing these > > > Holder > > > > type normed linear spaces. > > > > > > > > A pair of generators [1/n, x] for a linear temperament is > > > >*poptimal* if there is some p, 2 <= p <= infinity, > > > > > > why not go all the way to 1? MAD, or p=1, error certainly seems > > most > > > appropriate for dissonance curves such as vos's or secor's -- which > > > are in fact even pointier at the local minima (resembling exp > > > (|error|)) . . . > > > > Possibly because no one in the history of this endeavour has ever > > before now suggested that mean-absolute error corresponds in any way > > to the human perception of these things. > > no one in history? you've gotta be kidding me. sum or mean of absolute > errors is a quite common error criterion. By "this endeavour" I meant specifically the mathematical modelling of perceptual optimality of generators for musical temperaments, not mathematic or statistics in general. I also only said "possibly". I'm happy to be corrected. > >> "A "poptimal" generator can lay claim to being absolutely and ideally > >> perfect as a generator for a given temperament ..." > > > > When we're talking about human perception, as we are, it should be > > obvious that nothing can be absolutely and ideally perfect for > > everyone. Even a single person might prefer slightly different > > generators for different purposes. To validate such a claim > > of "perfection" you would at least need to produce statistics on the > > opinions of many listeners. > > clearly dave missed the clever mockery hidden in gene's statement. Sorry. I must have missed some previous discussion that would have made it clear that irony was intended. A smiley or winky after it wouldn't have gone astray. I just read it and thought, hey this is the sort of talk that gets the non-math folk pissed at us math folk. Thanks Gene, for being kind enough to ignore my patronising pedantry.
Message: 5890 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:15:21 Subject: Re: Nonoctave scales and linear temperaments From: Carl Lumma >>Perhaps I'm not seeing it, but I don't think we need to change >>our concept of limit. > >we certainly would, and could use "integer limit" as gene >suggests, or use product limit (tenney). Maybe so, but I don't see why. I'm suggesting we think only of the map, and let it do the walking. We get to pick what goes in the map. Picking 2, 3, 5, 7 and calling it "7-limit" seems fine to me. >>If you weight the error right, you shouldn't have to weight >>the complexity. > >I'll return to this after I've had my breakfast coffee. :) Sorry, all I should have said is, * is communitive. So it's really... Sum ( raw-error(i) * graham-complexity(i) * weighting-factor(i) ) I'll wager a coke this eliminates the need for an averaging function over the intervals of the limit. If so, it would approximate traditional badness, and this could be checked. -Carl
Message: 5894 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 01:41:08 Subject: Re: 8-limit meantone From: Carl Lumma >If we take the ratio, we get .580551, which still doesn't >quite do it for us. What ratio is that? Blackwood's r? -Carl
Message: 5896 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 13:29:40 Subject: Re: thanks manuel From: manuel.op.de.coul@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx >to start with, it would be good enough to simply have all the >consonant intervals (say within a given odd limit) show up as >diagonal lines -- the rest of the chart can be all white or all black >for now . . . the point is you could visually tweak the scale with an >eye toward approximating this consonance here and that consonance >there . . . donīt know of a better way to achieve this goal than an >applet like this! Ok I understand. It probably won't be much work to expand the triad player to do this. Manuel
5000 5050 5100 5150 5200 5250 5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950
5850 - 5875 -