About this archive This is an opt in archive. To add your posts click here and send e-mail: tuning_archive@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk.
S 2

First Previous Next Last

4000 4050 4100 4150 4200 4250 4300 4350 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100 5150 5200 5250 5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950 6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550

5450 - 5475 -


top of page bottom of page down

Message: 5450

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 03:23:42

Subject: Re: Badness with gentle rolloff

From: paulerlich

--- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > > But as far as I can tell, the only flat one is steps * cents.
> > 
> > That's "flat" for all ETs overall (though the wiggles aren't), 
but 
> > what we really care about is whether the goodness/badness values 
for 
> > the "very best" within each range show a flat pattern, or if 
their 
> > values go off to infinity or zero as "steps" increases.
> 
> Well the size of wiggles and the best in each range look pretty 
damn 
> flat to me for steps * cents (and not for steps^(4/3)*cents or 
> steps^2*cents). Take a look for yourself.
> 
> http://uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/Music/7LimitETBadness.xls.zip - Ok *
> 155 KB

Dave, you have to plot "goodness", not "badness".


top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5453 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 04:51:26 Subject: Re: Badness with gentle rolloff From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > > My (incomplete) understanding is that flatness is flatness. It's > what > > you acheive when you hit the critical exponent. The "logarithmic" > > character that we see is simply a by-product of the criticality. > > > > I look forward to a fuller and more accurate reply from Gene. > > When you measure the size of an et n by log(n), and are at the > critical exponent, the ets less than a certain fixed badness are > evenly distributed on average; This is only true if you choose a very low value for your "certain fixed badness", right? > if you plotted numbers of ets less > than the limit up to n versus log(n), it should be a rough line. If > you go over the critical exponent, you should get a finite list. If > you go under, it is weighted in favor of large ets, in terms of the > log of the size. What if you used n instead of log(n)? Would there still be this same critical function? Or could a function with a different form be the critical one?
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5454 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:45:53 Subject: Re: Badness with gentle rolloff From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > Dave, you have to plot "goodness", not "badness". Paul, I assume goodness = 1/badness? How could any reasonable transformation from badness to goodness change whether it looks flat or not? I've added goodness plots below the badness plots in http://uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/Music/7LimitETBadness.xls.zip - Ok * I agree that goodness lets you see the trends in the best more easily. But with the limited sample we have, up to 612-tET, it looks like the goodness of the best in any range is already falling off with increasing number of steps, even with steps*cents. Going to steps^(4/3)*cents just makes it fall off faster. So I still think steps*cents is the flat one. Yahoo's advertising has sure taken a quantum leap in obtrusiveness, if not badness! Yikes.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5455 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:51:09 Subject: Re: Temperament calculations online From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., graham@m... wrote: > <temperament finding scripts *> > > Early days yet, but it is working. > > > Graham That's awesome!
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5456 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:08:21 Subject: One way to block web advertising From: dkeenanuqnetau I'm using the Guidescope proxy service. It's working for me. See http://www.guidescope.com *
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5457 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:47 +0 Subject: Re: More lists From: graham@xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx In-Reply-To: <9v8gp5+lv0o@xxxxxxx.xxx> Me: > > so if you'd like to check this should be > > Paultone minimax: > > > > > > 2/11, 106.8 cent generator Paul: > That's clearly wrong, as the 7:4 is off by 17.5 cents! Well, that is interesting. It turns out the minimax temperament corresponds to a just 35:24. But I'd previously assumed that the minimax had to have a just interval within the consonance limit. Well, I've added some sticking tape to the algorithm, but I'm not sure it'll hold. This is what I get now 2/11, 109.4 cent generator basis: (0.5, 0.09113589675523795) mapping by period and generator: [(2, 0), (3, 1), (5, -2), (6, -2)] mapping by steps: [(12, 10), (19, 16), (28, 23), (34, 28)] highest interval width: 3 complexity measure: 6 (8 for smallest MOS) highest error: 0.014573 (17.488 cents) 7:5 =~ 10:7 consistent with: 10, 12, 22 > I don't think it should count as unique since > > > 7:5 =~ 10:7 Yes, that was a different problem. I wasn't including tritone-equivalences as duplicates. Graham
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5458 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:05:50 Subject: Re: Badness with gentle rolloff From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > Dave, you have to plot "goodness", not "badness". > > Paul, I assume goodness = 1/badness? How could any reasonable > transformation from badness to goodness change whether it looks flat > or not? You'll be looking at the opposite extremes of the graph. > I've added goodness plots below the badness plots in > http://uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/Music/7LimitETBadness.xls.zip - Ok * > > I agree that goodness lets you see the trends in the best more easily. > But with the limited sample we have, up to 612-tET, it looks like the > goodness of the best in any range is already falling off with > increasing number of steps, even with steps*cents. Going to > steps^(4/3)*cents just makes it fall off faster. Not really. At 612, you can't really see the difference yet. Go much further and you'll see it.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5459 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:23:18 Subject: Vitale 19 (was: Re: Temperament calculations online) From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., graham@m... wrote: > <temperament finding scripts *> > > Early days yet, but it is working. > > > Graham Nice work, Graham! Hey Dave, Continuing our conversation from the tuning list, I plugged in the unison vectors 243:245 and 224:225 into Graham's temperament finder, and got Graham's MAGIC temperament. Graham gives a generator of 380.39 cents. The 19-tone MOS would have 7 otonal and 7 utonal tetrads, with a maximum error of 5+ cents. How many tetrads did your MIRACLE Vitale 19 have, Dave? (by which I mean Rami Vitale's scale, without 21/16, 63/32, 8/7, 12/7, and Miraclized.)
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5460 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:28:46 Subject: A hidden message (was: Re: Badness with gentle rolloff) From: paulerlich I wrote, > Not really. At 612, you can't really see the difference yet. Go much > further and you'll see it. Well I extended the graph out to 32768, and 4/3 starts to make more sense as an exponent. But I noticed something else -- something totally unexpected. Rather than looking like random "noise", the pattern of "best local ETs" seems to have a definite "wave" to it, with a frequency of about 1680 -- that is, the "wave" repeats itself about 19 1/2 times within the first 32768 ETs, seemingly with quite a bit of regularity. Are my eyes decieving me here, or is something going on? Gene? I'll try Matlab next . . .
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5461 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:02:12 Subject: A hidden message (was: Re: Badness with gentle rolloff) From: paulerlich I wrote, > Rather than looking like random "noise", the pattern of "best local > ETs" seems to have a definite "wave" to it, with a frequency of about > 1680 -- that is, the "wave" repeats itself about 19 1/2 times within > the first 32768 ETs, seemingly with quite a bit of regularity. > > Are my eyes decieving me here, or is something going on? Gene? > > I'll try Matlab next . . . Take a look at the two pictures in Yahoo groups: /tuning-math/files/Paul/ * (I didn't enforce consistency, but we're only focusing on the "goodest" ones, which are consistent anyway). In both of them, you can spot the same periodicity, occuring 60 times with regular frequency among the first 100,000 ETs. Thus we see a frequency of about 1670 in the wave, agreeing closely with the previous estimate? What the heck is going on here? Riemann zetafunction weirdness?
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5462 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:39:35 Subject: Re: the 75 "best" 7-limit ETs below 100,000-tET From: clumma --- In tuning-math@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hey guys. This is _tuning_ math remember. It's a serious stretch >> of my imagination to think that ETs above 2000 have anything to >> do with tuning, let alone 100,000! > > These high numbers have their uses, and Paul seems to have > discovered something of considerable number-theoretic interest, > so give us a break, please. It's a fine thread, but it's also the first one on this list that I can remember for which I can see no musical application, and it's probably good somebody pointed this out. If it leads to more powerful methods for finding good temperaments, that could be used in something like Graham's temperament finder, then I'll take this back.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5463 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:03:19 Subject: Vitale 19 (was: Re: Temperament calculations online) From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote: > > If the tuning has a point of reflective symmetry (not necessarily > > at a note) then there will be the same number of otonal as utonal. > > Symmetry with respect to what? If it doesn't have to be a note, > any continuous single-generator chain will have it. > > -Carl You bet! But if it isn't a continuous single-generator chain, then . . .
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5464 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:44:23 Subject: Re: Badness with gentle rolloff From: clumma [Dave Keenan wrote...] > As has been done many times before, we are looking for a single > figure that combines the error in cents with the number of notes > in the tuning to give a single figure-of-demerit with which to > rank tunings for the purpose of deciding what to leave out of a > published list or catalog for which limited space is available. > One simply lowers the maximum badness bar until the right number > of tunings get under it. Thanks. Has consistency been considered? It is an error per note measure. [Gene Ward Smith wrote...] >it would be 4/3=1+1/3 for the 7-limit ets, and 2=(1+1/3)/(1-1/3) >for 7-limit temperaments, but 5/4 = 1+1/4 for 11-limit ets, and >5/3 = (1+1/4)/(1-1/4) for 11-limit temperaments Sorry, Gene, but I'm not following where you're getting these exponents. Is there a simple rule or reason I'm missing? -Carl
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5465 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:04:41 Subject: Re: Badness with gentle rolloff From: paulerlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote: > Sorry, Gene, but I'm not following where you're getting these > exponents. Is there a simple rule or reason I'm missing? > > -Carl It has to do with Diophantine approximation theory. Have you read Dave Benson's course notes?
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5468 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 20:31:36 Subject: Re: Badness with gentle rolloff From: clumma >> Sorry, Gene, but I'm not following where you're getting these >> exponents. Is there a simple rule or reason I'm missing? >> >> -Carl > > It has to do with Diophantine approximation theory. Have you read > Dave Benson's course notes? I've looked at them. What I could understand looked mundane, and what I couldn't looked like it required quite a bit more math than I know. Is there a section of the Benson which is particularly helpful here? -Carl
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5471 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:38:17 Subject: Vitale 19 (was: Re: Temperament calculations online) From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote: > >> Dave, didn't you once show that the number of o- and > >> u-tonal chords must be the same in any linear temp., > >> of any number of notes? > >> > >> -Carl > > > > Huh? Compare 7-meantone with 7-chain-of-minor thirds. > > I realized this ambiguity after I posted. I meant, > any given linear temp. taken to any given number of > notes. That doesn't quite do it. You meant: .. that the number of o-tonal chords is the same as the number of u-tonal chords in any linear temp. taken to any number of notes.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5472 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:58:14 Subject: Vitale 19 (was: Re: Temperament calculations online) From: clumma >> I realized this ambiguity after I posted. I meant, >> any given linear temp. taken to any given number of >> notes. > > That doesn't quite do it. You meant: > > .. that the number of o-tonal chords is the same as the number > of u-tonal chords in any linear temp. taken to any number of notes. You took out the "given"?? -Carl
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5473 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 23:35:57 Subject: Vitale 19 (was: Re: Temperament calculations online) From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote: > >> I realized this ambiguity after I posted. I meant, > >> any given linear temp. taken to any given number of > >> notes. > > > > That doesn't quite do it. You meant: > > > > .. that the number of o-tonal chords is the same as the number > > of u-tonal chords in any linear temp. taken to any number of notes. > > You took out the "given"?? Put 'em back if you like, but there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity now without them, or am I missing something?
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5474 Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 00:07:19 Subject: Vitale 19 (was: Re: Temperament calculations online) From: dkeenanuqnetau --- In tuning-math@y..., "clumma" <carl@l...> wrote: > Dave, didn't you once show that the number of o- and > u-tonal chords must be the same in any linear temp., > of any number of notes? Hmm. I don't think I showed it. I just claimed it was obvious when you look at a linear tempered tuning as chains of generators, at least in the single-chain case. The utonal chord pattern on the chains must always be the mirror image of the otonal. If the tuning has a point of reflective symmetry (not necessarily at a note) then there will be the same number of otonal as utonal. With multiple chains they must be considered to be arranged uniformly around the surface of a cylinder (with the chains parallel to the axis of the cylinder). If the tuning has a point of reflective symmetry in this geometry, then there will be the same number of otonal as utonal. Miracle-tempered Vitale 19 is not a linear temperament since it is not contiguous on the chain. But it is symmetrical on the chain so it has equal o and u.
top of page bottom of page up

First Previous Next Last

4000 4050 4100 4150 4200 4250 4300 4350 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100 5150 5200 5250 5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950 6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550

5450 - 5475 -

top of page