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 109000 9050 9100 9150 9200 9250 9300 9350 9400 9450 9500 9550 9600 9650 9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950
9750 - 9775 -
Message: 9775 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:48:27 Subject: Re: finding a moat in 7-limit commas a bit tougher . . . From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> > wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > wrote: > > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" > <perlich@a...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/Erlich/planar.gif * > > > > > > > > Paul, > > > > > > > > Please do another one of these without the labels, so we have a > > > chance > > > > of eyeballing the moats. > > > > > > > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/Erlich/planar0.gif * > > > > Thanks Paul. Fascinating to look at, isn't it. So organic. Some > order, > > some randomness. > > > > I think that planar temperaments are inherently less useful than > > linear (which are less useful than equal). > > I completely agree if you replace "less useful" with "more complex". > > > This is mostly due to the > > melodic dimension, which Herman mentions all the time, but we are > > completely ignoring (except in so far as harmonic complexity implies > > melodic complexity). > > I disagree that it's about an ignored melodic dimension. Instead, > it's as I said before, these complexity values are not directly > comparable, because what's the length of an area? What's the area of > a volume. > > > We are not measuring things like evenness and > > transposability when deciding what is in and what is out. And that's > > OK. We have to learn to crawl before we can walk. > > Well, we're definitely agreed that a 7-limit planar temperament based > on a particular comma is quite a bit more complex than a 5-limit > linear temperament based on that same comma. > > > But because planar are inherently less even and less transposable > than > > linear I think there are only a very few interesting or useful 7- > limit > > planars. > > Sure. I kind of figured the ragismic planar deserved to be in there, > but I wouldn't insist on it. > > > Since you favour linear moats, > > Where did you get that idea? Curved is fine too. What range of exponents are acceptable to you? Isn't 1 near the (geometric) middle of them? > > > I suggest > > 50/49 > > 49/48 > > 64/63 > > 81/80 > > 126/125 > > 225/224 > > 245/243 > > I definitely wouldn't want to throw out 28/27, 36/35 . . . Gene, I hope you're happy I'm using slashes here. I agree there isn't likely to be any confusion in this discussion since we're not talking about individual pitches at all. Why not. I have enough trouble wondering why anyone would use a 5-limit _linear_ temperament that was non-unique, 7-limit planar stretches my credibility even further. Can you propose a scale or finite tuning in these that you think might be useful as an approximation of 7-limit JI? Moat-wise, I can see my way to adding 36/35 and 128/125. That probably gives the biggest moat possible (percentage-wise) particularly if you use an exponent greater than 1. Unless you were to have one with an exponent less than 1 (which I don't like) and go all the way up to include 21/20 (which seems lidicrous to me).
Message: 9776 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:52:00 Subject: Re: Back to the 5-limit cutoff From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "David Bowen" <dmb0317@f...> wrote: > Sorry for my delay in entering this discussion, but I'm a Digest subscriber. ... Hi David. It's good to hear from someone other than the usual suspects. Thanks.
Message: 9777 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:58:33 Subject: Re: finding a moat in 7-limit commas a bit tougher . . . From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > I definitely wouldn't want to throw out 28/27, 36/35 . . . > > Gene, I hope you're happy I'm using slashes here. I agree there isn't > likely to be any confusion in this discussion since we're not talking > about individual pitches at all. > > Why not. I have enough trouble wondering why anyone would use a > 5-limit _linear_ temperament that was non-unique, 7-limit planar > stretches my credibility even further. Can you propose a scale or > finite tuning in these that you think might be useful as an > approximation of 7-limit JI? Not right now, must jet soon . . . This is Herman's department, or maybe Gene's . . . > Moat-wise, I can see my way to adding 36/35 and 128/125. That probably > gives the biggest moat possible (percentage-wise) particularly if you > use an exponent greater than 1. Unless you were to have one with an > exponent less than 1 (which I don't like) Maybe you'll reconsider when you look at the ET graphs I just posted. > and go all the way up to > include 21/20 (which seems lidicrous to me). It doesn't seem that lidicrous :) to me . . . Seriously, I think all kinds of novel effects could be obtained if 21/20 vanished, and if you used full 1:2:3:4:5:6:7:8:9:10 chords, there would certainly be no confusion over what the chords were 'representing' -- you might simply have to use the kinds of timbres that George and I were talking about . . . Maybe Herman would like to entertain us with some sort of example . . .
Message: 9778 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 03:31:10 Subject: TOP Equal Temperament graphs! (was: Re: Cross-check for TOP 5-limit 12-equal) From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > wrote: > I used this latter complexity measure to create these graphs: Thanks for doing these Paul. > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/et3.gif * I'm not familiar enough with 3-limit harmony (or rather ignoring 5-limit harmony) to comment on this, but I think I could be happy with a straight line cutoff here. > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/et5.gif * For this I'd go for a cutoff that just includes 15, 29, 46, 53, which has a good enough straight-line moat, but admittedly it would be widened slightly by using an exponent slightly less than 1. > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/et7.gif * Here I assume you are referring to the difficulty of finding a moat that includes both 12 and 72 and keeps out things like 58 and 39. To me, this is just evidence that 72-ET would not be of much interest as a 7-limit temperament (due to its complexity) if it wasn't for the fact that it is a subdivision of 12-ET. So we could justify its inclusion an an historical special case whether it was inside any moat or not. That's another dimension of usefulness that we're not considering -- 12-ness. > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/et11.gif * Here we can include 22, 31, 41, 46, and 72 with a straight line, but admittedly it would be a somewhat wider moat if the exponent was made slightly less than one. Looking at these has disposed me more towards linear moats and less towards quadratic ones, but only slightly toward powers slightly less than one. If I revisit the 5-limit linear temperament plot and look for good straight (or near-straight) moats, I find there are none that would include 2187/2048 that I could accept, because they would either mean including too much dross at the high complexity end of things, or would make 25/24 and 135/128 look far better than the marginal things that they are. But I could accept a straight line (or one with exponent slightly less than 1) that excluded not only 2187/2048 and 3125/2916 but also 6561/6250 and 20480/19683, and included semisixths (78732/78125). I'm guessing Gene would be happy with that too, since it looks more like a log-flat badness cutoff with additional cutoffs on error and complexity.
Message: 9780 Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 04:45:01 Subject: Re: finding a moat in 7-limit commas a bit tougher . . . From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> > wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > wrote: > > > > I definitely wouldn't want to throw out 28/27, 36/35 . . . > > > > Gene, I hope you're happy I'm using slashes here. I agree there > isn't > > likely to be any confusion in this discussion since we're not > talking > > about individual pitches at all. > > > > Why not. I have enough trouble wondering why anyone would use a > > 5-limit _linear_ temperament that was non-unique, 7-limit planar > > stretches my credibility even further. Can you propose a scale or > > finite tuning in these that you think might be useful as an > > approximation of 7-limit JI? > > Not right now, must jet soon . . . This is Herman's department, or > maybe Gene's . . . > > > Moat-wise, I can see my way to adding 36/35 and 128/125. That > probably > > gives the biggest moat possible (percentage-wise) particularly if > you > > use an exponent greater than 1. Unless you were to have one with an > > exponent less than 1 (which I don't like) > > Maybe you'll reconsider when you look at the ET graphs I just posted. > > > and go all the way up to > > include 21/20 (which seems lidicrous to me). > > It doesn't seem that lidicrous :) to me . . . Definition of "lidicrous": so ludicrous that you can't type correctly. ;-) > Seriously, I think all > kinds of novel effects could be obtained if 21/20 vanished, "All kinds of novel effects" is one thing and "approximating 7-limit JI" is another. > and if > you used full 1:2:3:4:5:6:7:8:9:10 chords, there would certainly be > no confusion over what the chords were 'representing' -- you might > simply have to use the kinds of timbres that George and I were > talking about . . . Maybe Herman would like to entertain us with some > sort of example . . . It's the lack of counterexamples I'm more worried about. I understand you claim that 12-ET is an approximation of JI for all limits. If the obtaining of relative consonance by using timbres of poorly defined pitch in massive otonalities is a sufficient criterion for temperament-hood (JI approximation) then please give me a non-trivial planar tuning that _doesn't_ work like that. Otherwise we have a reductio ad absurdum. By the way, the TOP tuning of the 21/20 planar temperament has the following errors in the primes (to the nearest cent). 2 +10 c 3 -15 c 5 +23 c 7 -27 c So we have the following large errors in certain intervals 2:3 -25 c 7:10 +60 c 3:4 +35 c 5:7 -50 c 3:5 +38 c 4:7 -47 c The approximations of 3:4 and 5:7 are the same interval, so are the approximations of 3:5 and 4:7, and 2:3 is the same as 7:10.
Message: 9783 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:08:14 Subject: TOP Equal Temperament graphs! (was: Re: Cross-check for TOP 5-limit 12-equal) From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> > wrote: > So 12-equal makes it in for you at 7 but not at 11? 12-equal doesn't really make it in as 7-limit for me personally, but I was trying to keep you happy too. > > Looking at these has disposed me more towards linear moats and less > > towards quadratic ones, > > So it worked! Yes. And tomorrow someone might come up with something to convince me of something different. :-)
Message: 9784 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:38:36 Subject: Re: Duals to ems optimization From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > > It's not surprising given how Gene set it up: with the same weighting > > that gives equilateral triangles and tetrahedra in the 5-limit and 7- > > limit lattices . . . > > Actually, isosceles triangles. Huh? You said this was the *unweighted* optimization scheme! Also, you never followed up on the loose ends of this thread, including the post "Attn: Gene" (not 2). > The fifth gets a length of log(3) (or > cents(3) or whatever log you are using) and the major and minor thirds > have the same length, log(5). You're seem to be contradicting yourself now -- in the post you're replying to, it said (your writing): ||5/4|| = ||7/4|| = ||11/8|| = sqrt(11).
Message: 9786 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:40:27 Subject: Re: finding a moat in 7-limit commas a bit tougher . . . From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> > > wrote: > > > Perhaps we should limit such tests to otonalities having at most one > > > note per prime (or odd) in the limit. e.g. If you can't make a > > > convincing major triad then it aint 5-limit. And you can't use > > > scale-spectrum timbres although you can use inharmonics that have no > > > relation to the scale. > > > > yes, mastuuuhhhhh . . . =( > > It was just a suggestion. I wrote "perhaps we should" and "e.g.". > > What does "=(" mean? > > I'm guessing you think it's a bad idea. It's a picture of me succumbing to your authority.
Message: 9787 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:26:22 Subject: TOP Equal Temperament graphs! (was: Re: Cross-check for TOP 5-limit 12-equal) From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > > wrote: > > > I used this latter complexity measure to create these graphs: > > Thanks for doing these Paul. > > > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/et3.gif * > > I'm not familiar enough with 3-limit harmony (or rather ignoring > 5-limit harmony) to comment on this, but I think I could be happy with > a straight line cutoff here. > > > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/et5.gif * > > For this I'd go for a cutoff that just includes 15, 29, 46, 53, which > has a good enough straight-line moat, but admittedly it would be > widened slightly by using an exponent slightly less than 1. Looks like a 'constellation' -- with 12 stars :( :) > Here I assume you are referring to the difficulty of finding a moat > that includes both 12 and 72 and keeps out things like 58 and 39. I also would have liked to see 43 and 50, but I suppose these are just 'footnoats' . . . > > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/et7.gif * > > Here I assume you are referring to the difficulty of finding a moat > that includes both 12 and 72 and keeps out things like 58 and 39. Hmm . . . I see a rivulet, not a moat . . . 58 has gotten a lot more attention than 39 . . . but I was actually referring indirectly to how, in these graphs, the density of temperaments is not constant along each equicomplexity line, as in the comma graphs . . . > > Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/et11.gif * > > Here we can include 22, 31, 41, 46, and 72 with a straight line, but > admittedly it would be a somewhat wider moat if the exponent was made > slightly less than one. So 12-equal makes it in for you at 7 but not at 11? > Looking at these has disposed me more towards linear moats and less > towards quadratic ones, So it worked!
Message: 9789 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:50:11 Subject: Re: Paul's 32 again From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > Here it is, I put this list together in a fairly absurd manner from the information you gave, because it was the best I could do. I appreciate your great efforts to help out, but the most valuable thing you could do in this case would be to come up with a new list. The reason Dave and I wanted it in single-line format was so that we could graph it and make decisions based on it. Starting with the same 32 defeats the whole purpose, I'm afraid.
Message: 9792 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:04:07 Subject: Re: Paul32 ordered by a beep-ennealimmal measure From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > Here are the same temperaments, ordered by error * complexity^(2.8). > If the exponent was 2.7996... then ennealimma and beep would be the > same, but why get fancy? I'm thinking an error cutoff of 15 and a > badness cutoff of 4200 might work, looking at this; that would include > schismic. More ruthlessly, we might try 3500. Really savage would be > 3000; bye-bye miracle. Strange; miracle was #3 according to log-flat, wasn't it?
Message: 9799 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 05:26:43 Subject: Re: Comma reduction? From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > > > Are the 2 commas in the 7-limit always linearly independent? > > > > Yes, they are never 'collinear'. > > By definition of a 7-limit linear temperament. > > > > How > > > are they generated, (from wedgies OR matrices)? > > > > You can pick them off the tree. We've been looking at some of > > the 'fruits' here. > > Trees don't work for me. You can get them from direct comma searches > or extract them out of temperaments, etc. > > > > Also, was told > > > that the complement of a wedge product in the 5-limit is the same > > > as the cross-product, how does this work in the 7-limit? > > The complement of a 2-val is a 2-monzo, and vice-versa, which just > involves reordering. > > ~<<||l1 l2 l3 l4 l5 l6|| = <<l6 -l5 l4 l3 -l2 l1|| Shouldn't that be ~||l1 l2 l3 l4 l5 l6>> = <<l6 -l5 l4 l3 -l2 l1|| or something?
9000 9050 9100 9150 9200 9250 9300 9350 9400 9450 9500 9550 9600 9650 9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950
9750 - 9775 -