Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
tuning · Welcome to the Alternate Tunings Mailing List.
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want your group to be featured on the Yahoo! Groups website? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Metastable intervals   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #74551 of 85346 |
2/7 SC in 'septenarian' "qaternarius"C~G~D~A-E-B~F#.....C, was: Re: continuo...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Margo Schulter <mschulter@...> wrote:
>
> Then, again, the example of Zarlino
> and his student Vincenzo Galilei cautions us that a teacher is not
> necessarily responsible for all the views of her/his pupil --
> although Galilei, as it happens, expresses a liking for Zarlino's
> 2/7-comma as the most pleasing keyboard temperament.

Dear Margo,

divide alike Zarlino once had done, the

SC = 81/80 = (81*7)/(80*7) = 567/560

into 4 arithmetic subparts [2/7 + 2/7 + 2/7] + 1/7 in his manner:

567/560 = [ (567/565) * (565/563) * (563/561) ] * (561/560) = 81/80

That yields in Werckmeister's terms of 8 just pure 5ths
an corresponding 4-fold subdivision of the:

PC = 3^12/2^19 = (81/80)*(32768/32805) = SC * schisma

into

C 565/567 G 563/565 D 561/563 A-E-B (560/561)(32768/32805)
F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-Bb-F-C

or 'septenarian' circulating:

begin=7=Ab-Eb-Bb-F-C~G~D~A-E-B~F#-G#=7=end

expanded multiplying consecutive the following lines by factor 3

Ab_-2: 7 cps or Hz
Eb_1: 21 (> 20.777777777...)
Bb_2: 63 (> 62.3333333333...)
F_3: 189 (> 187 = 561/3)
C_5: 567 (> 565 (> 563 (> 561 = 187*3 )))
temper down by: (1 200 * ln(565 / 567)) / ln(2) = ~-6.11744117...Cents
G_6: 1695 (> 1689 (> 1683 = 187*9 ))
temper down by: (1 200 * ln(563 / 565)) / ln(2) = ~-6.13913427...Cents
D_8: 5067 (> 5049 = 187*27)
temper down by: (1 200 * ln(561 / 563)) / ln(2) = ~-6.16098177...Cents
A_10: 15147 = 187*81
E_12: 45441 = 187*243
B_13: 136323 = 187*729...(> B-7: 7/27)
lower (1200*ln((560/561)*(32768/32805)))/ln(2) = ~-5.04245318...Cents
(F#_15: 187*2187>) F#_-5: 7/9
C#_-3: 7/3
G#_-2: 7 cycle closed enharmonic back to start: Ab_-2: 7 cps or Hz

That's chromatic in ascending pitch order as absolute frequencies
when taken modulo 2^n into the middle octave:

c 283.5 = 567/2 "middle_C"
# 298.6666666... = 298+2/3 = 128*7/3
d 316.6875 = 5067/16
# 336 = 21*16
e 355.007812 = 45441/128
f 378 = 189*2
# 398.2222222... = 398+2/9 = 512*7/9
g 423.75 = 1695/4
# 448 = 7*64
a 473.34375 = 473+11/32 = 15147/32 ~Praetorius high Choir-Thone~
# 504 = 63*8
b 532.511719.. = 532+131/256 = 17*11*3^7/2^8
c'567 "tenor_C"

for the corresponding lower Cammerthone version
simply divide each pitch by 9/8 by of an major-tone downwards.

so that:

c_4 becomes 252 Hz = (567*4/9)cps and
a_4 = 1683/4 = 420.75 Hz

in order to replace the my meanwhile outdated 9.9.99
first original "squiggle" 420Hz proposal:
http://www.strukturbildung.de/Andreas.Sparschuh/
by the above new improved version, the now actual:

Rational 2/7-SC-"squiggle" interpretation absolute @ a'=420.75cps

that tempers barely 4 of the dozen 5ths
just in Werckmeister's famous 8-pure 5ths layout,
instead fromerly only 4 pure 5ths once in 1999 at
DA&F#C#G#Eb. Meanwhile, now that turns out in my
in my ears as suspicious to much near
inbetween Kellners modern PC^(1/5) schmeme
or even worser others ahistoric alleged PC^(1/6) claims.

I.m.h.o:
As far as i do see the squiggles now:
There's no reason why JSB should had
depart from W's original layout
in whatsoever interpretation for
C~G~D~AEB~F#...C
you wants to prefer in yours taste.

Never the less:

Try out the rational 2/7-SC variant :

!septenarianFC_G_D_AEB_Fsharp.scl
!
C 565/567 G 563/565 D 561/563 AEB(560/561)(32768/32805)F#C#G#D#A#BbFC
!
12
!
256/243 ! C# ~1.05349794...
563/504 ! D ~1.11706349...
32/27 ! Eb ~1.18518519...
563/448 ! E ~1.25669643...
4/3 ! F ~1.33333333...
1024/729 ! F# ~1.40466392...
565/378 ! G ~1.49470899...
128/81 ! G# 1.58024691...
187/122 ! A ~1.53278689...
16/9 ! Bb ~1.7777777...
1683/896 ! H ~1.87834821...
2/1

as alternative choice when considering JSB's squiggels.

Concluding remark;
Attend that:
Above Zarlino's arithmetic 2/7-SC division should not be
confused with its modern irrational approximation:

(81/80)^(2/7) = ~1.0035556...
(1 200 * ln((81 / 80)^(2 / 7))) / ln(2) = ~6.14465417...Cents
with barely tiny deviation but significant
impact on the representation.

not to mention the even less useful: PC^(2/7)

(1 200 * ln(((3^12) / (2^19))^(2 / 7))) / ln(2) = ~6.70286011...Cents

or for all those,
that allege that JSB would had matched already back 1722 TUs
exactly precisely by ear within 15 minutes?

720TUs/7 = 102+6/7TUs ~102.857143...TUs

Whoever beliefes such broade claims except Brad?

Sorry, but:
Personally i don't need for an other logarithmic unit
than the traditional Cents of 1200-EDO.

Anyhow:
have a lot of fun with my new actual
arithmetic 2/7-SC "squiggles"
that fit even matching into Werckmeister's
C~G~D~A&B~F# pattern.

sincerely
A.S.




Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:50 pm

a_sparschuh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #74551 of 85346 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

RE: I didn't know Wiki had a Microtonal page; thanx. ... linked ... major ... comma ... I ... music ... results, ... was ... mastering ... avoids ... yet...
webtrailer
Offline Send Email
Dec 9, 2007
11:17 pm

... Dear Margo, divide alike Zarlino once had done, the SC = 81/80 = (81*7)/(80*7) = 567/560 into 4 arithmetic subparts [2/7 + 2/7 + 2/7] + 1/7 in his manner: ...
Andreas Sparschuh
a_sparschuh
Offline Send Email
Nov 25, 2007
5:50 pm

... (...) ... Please state your present position clearly. I want to be sure I understand this. Are you asserting that you now believe Bach's drawing at the...
Brad Lehman
bplehman27
Offline Send Email
Nov 26, 2007
3:09 am

... I overtook my current point of view about the wrong PC^(1/4) re-interpretation from: Johann Mattheson's "Grosse Generalbass Schule" 'Big thourough basso...
Andreas Sparschuh
a_sparschuh
Offline Send Email
Nov 27, 2007
8:45 pm

Dear Margo, My apologies for the late reply. I have been unwell this week, that is why my response is delayed. I tried so long in vain to search for a...
Ozan Yarman
ozanyarman
Offline Send Email
Nov 25, 2007
1:02 am

Dear Ozan, Please let me thank you for your mention of 17-EDO and 34-EDO. This reminds me of a 34-note system I proposed some years ago, and which looks very...
Margo Schulter
mschulter1325
Offline Send Email
Nov 25, 2007
5:40 am

Dear Margo, I have arrived at similar bike chains of 17-equal, albeit three cycles 15.482 and 35.294 cents apart respectively: Three 17-tone equal scales...
Ozan Yarman
ozanyarman
Offline Send Email
Nov 27, 2007
12:17 am

Hi Margo and everyone Is there anywhere on the internet where one might listen to samples of Adriaan Fokker's music? Thank you Justin...
justinasia
Offline Send Email
Nov 14, 2007
11:46 am

... Hi, Justin. Certainly I can write my suggested tunings in this way. I should quickly explain that what I posted are Scala files; when used with Scala, they...
Margo Schulter
mschulter1325
Offline Send Email
Nov 13, 2007
7:36 am

Hi Margo I haven't digested your mail yet, but just first to reply to a couple ... I think this is the same scale we are using. If you look at the chart I made...
justinasia
Offline Send Email
Nov 13, 2007
9:23 am

Hi Margo ... Could you tell me why you prefer "33/28 284.447 undecimal minor third" to Herman's suggestion "32/27 294.135 Pythagorean minor third"? And "39/22...
justinasia
Offline Send Email
Nov 13, 2007
9:49 am

... Dear Justin, Thank you so much! Arigatogozaimas! Now I can read your chart without any problem Also, please let me thank you very warmly for the...
Margo Schulter
mschulter1325
Offline Send Email
Nov 14, 2007
4:50 am

... This is pretty close to a chain of fourths or fifths if 896;891 is tempered out. A couple of notes are different (since your scale has factors of 13 in...
Herman Miller
teamousechan...
Offline Send Email
Nov 15, 2007
5:10 am

... Mmm, interesting, but I have to say I wonder about one thing; if you are going to "rationalize," why not go whole-hog a truly rationalize, instead of using...
Paul Poletti
losekanon
Offline Send Email
Nov 2, 2007
5:47 pm

... group ... well ... rationalize, ... If you make all of the narrowest fifths exactly the same size (as you suggest below), you've *irrationalized* them....
George D. Secor
gdsecor
Offline Send Email
Nov 2, 2007
8:57 pm

... Well, I have to admit that after a half hour of staring at my large monitor (19" wide) and my big chart which graphically shows the beat rates of every...
Paul Poletti
losekanon
Offline Send Email
Nov 2, 2007
11:55 pm

... you ... the ... triads ... rates ... proportional ... When ... trace ... change ... area ... distract ... third ... If you're saying, for all practical...
George D. Secor
gdsecor
Offline Send Email
Nov 5, 2007
6:20 pm

Thanks to Margo for her persistence in arithmetic. However, one should note two things: In order to start off the whole calculation, one had to look up the ...
Tom Dent
sphaerenklang
Offline Send Email
Nov 2, 2007
10:00 am

... equivalent ... If the TU is simply a logarithmic measure, as Monz tells me it is and as Margo's calculation assumes, yes. I was under the impression the ...
Gene Ward Smith
genewardsmith
Offline Send Email
Nov 3, 2007
10:02 am

Hi Tom and Gene, ... I always understood the TU to be defined as a logarithmic 1/720 of a pythagorean-comma. Perhaps there is a more ambiguous definition, but...
monz
joemonz
Online Now Send Email
Nov 3, 2007
2:54 pm

... Looks like it ought to work. What was your numberical result? It should be 720 log(64/63)/log(P), where P is the Pythagorean comma and log is log base...
Gene Ward Smith
genewardsmith
Offline Send Email
Nov 3, 2007
11:08 pm

OK, my mathematical training tells me that 64/63 in TU should be 720 * log(64/63) / log(531441/524288) compare cents : 1200 * log(64/63) / log(2). The TU...
Tom Dent
sphaerenklang
Offline Send Email
Nov 3, 2007
11:08 pm

... Amen to that! That's why I gave it a skip long ago when somebody, probably Brad, brought it up on the harpsichord list. I just didn't see the point. As far...
Paul Poletti
losekanon
Offline Send Email
Nov 4, 2007
8:43 am

... Let's nip this in the bud right now. I have never had *any* "electronic pitch meter", Korg-esque or otherwise. All my tuning is by ear, from any of...
Brad Lehman
bplehman27
Offline Send Email
Nov 4, 2007
12:29 pm

Hi Paul, ... I'm inclined to agree with that ... except for the fact that you're most likely talking about 12-edo when you invoke it, and that is precisely...
monz
joemonz
Online Now Send Email
Nov 4, 2007
7:00 pm

... Looks suspiciously like 612-et to me....
Gene Ward Smith
genewardsmith
Offline Send Email
Nov 4, 2007
8:31 pm

Hi Gene and Paul, ... Yup, exactly! That's the one i was thinking of. -monz email: joemonz(AT)yahoo.com http://tonalsoft.com Tonescape microtonal music...
monz
joemonz
Online Now Send Email
Nov 5, 2007
12:31 am

Hi - thanks to Monz for pointing out that the wheel has been reinvented several times ... it was Neidhardt who did it first, you know, though whether he would...
Tom Dent
sphaerenklang
Offline Send Email
Nov 9, 2007
3:40 pm

Hi Tom, ... Here's my answer: 53-edo is a decent approximation to 5-limit JI, and a superb approximation to 3-limit pythagorean. Its chief drawback in...
monz
joemonz
Online Now Send Email
Nov 9, 2007
5:34 pm

... What's relevant is that it is extremely accurate. If we call one step of 612 "sk", then the fifth is 357.997 sk, the majr third 197.020 sk, and the minor...
Gene Ward Smith
genewardsmith
Offline Send Email
Nov 10, 2007
6:21 am
 First  |  |  Next > Last 
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help