Tuning-Math Digests messages 9450 - 9474

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 10

Previous Next

9000 9050 9100 9150 9200 9250 9300 9350 9400 9450 9500 9550 9600 9650 9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950

9450 - 9475 -



top of page bottom of page down


Message: 9450

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:17:54

Subject: Re: rank complexity explanation updated

From: Carl Lumma

>> >> 100.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  11 12
>> >> 200.0 : 2  3  5  7  9  10 12
>> >> 400.0 : 1  3  5  7  8  10 12
>> >> 500.0 : 2  4  6  7  9  11 12
>> >> 700.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  10 12
>> >> 900.0 : 2  3  5  7  8  10 12
>> >> 1100.0: 1  3  5  6  8  10 12
//
>> >One can obtain "my" interval vector from "your" interval matrix
>> >by tallying all the intervals from 1 to 6 and ignoring 7 to 12.
>> >You subsequently obtain (2,5,4,3,6,1)
>> 
>> Sorry, but how does tallying numbers in the above matrix lead to
>> (2,5,4,3,6,1)?
>
>Easy! There are 2 1's, 5 2's 4 3's 3 4's 6 5's and 1 6.

Aha!  Are these known as "interval vectors" in the trade?  And have
they ever been applied to tunings other than 12-equal?

>Jon Wild and I have been discussing this, and he has compiled
>interval vector lists for sets and their subsets all the way up
>to "C{31,15}-reduced" (Gene hates that I use the C{m,n} notation,
>he has proposed a better way, to name these sets, somewhere in
>the archives, I'll have to hunt for it)

What is this notation?  Also, much appreciated if find Gene's
suggestion.

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9451

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:06:25

Subject: Re: 114 7-limit temperaments

From: Dave Keenan

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> 
> wrote:
> > This comparison of different outputs for the same temperament shows 
> up
> > the need to correctly normalise the new weighted error and 
> complexity
> > figures so they actually have units we can relate to. i.e. cents for
> > the error and gens per interval for the complexity.
> > 
> > This should be simple to do.
> > 
> > I think the correct normalisation of a weighted norm is the one 
> where,
> > if every individual value happened to be X then the, the norm would
> > also be X, irrespective of the weights.
> > 
> > e.g. if the individual errors are E1, E2, ... En,
> 
> You realize that there are an infinite number of errors in the TOP 
> case.

No I didn't. How do you mean? Obviously you don't do an infinite
number of calculations. But even so, the normalisation factor may
still converge.

If it's a minimax type of thing then all we need is to divide the
current result by the maximum weight of any interval. Let me guess:
this is lg2(2) = 1 so there would be no change?

Is the weighting the same for the complexity? Minimax where gens per
interval is divided by lg2(product_complexity(interval))?


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9452

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:06:30

Subject: Re: rank complexity explanation updated

From: Carl Lumma

>> >> >The interval matrix often, if not typically, has all
>> >> >unisons/octaves along the diagonal. This one is merely
>> >> >a reshuffling so that the diagonal becomes a right vertical.
>> >> 
>> >> No, the interval matrix is always written as above (the values
>> >> after the colons, at least).
>> >
>> >Where do you get *always*??
>> 
>> I have never seen it printed this way.  Where do you get
>> "often, if not typically"?
>> 
>> -Carl
>
>Here's just one example:
>
>Definitions of tuning terms: interval matrix, (c) 1998 by Joe Monzo *

Oh, maybe that is how R. printed them.  I'll look when I get home.

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9453

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:54:34

Subject: Re: 114 7-limit temperaments

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>Can one of you easily plot these 7-limit temperaments on an error
> >>vs. complexity graph (log log or whatever seemed best with 5-
limit)
> >>so we can all think about what our subjective badness contours 
might
> >>look like.
> >
> >I could do that, but as this was done with a log-flat badness 
cutoff, 
> >there will be a huge gaping hole in the graph. That's why I'm 
trying 
> >to figure out the whole deal for myself, but no one's helping.
> 
> Since I usually like the way you figure things out, I'll do whatever
> I can to help, which may not be much.  If there are any particular
> msg. #s associated with this, I'll reread them.  I didn't follow 
your
> orthogonalization posts at all. :(
> 
> Part of the problem is these contours represent musical values, so
> they're ultimately a matter of opinion.

Not the problem here, as Dave simply wanted a graph, for which the 
best dataset would involve a single error cutoff and a single 
complexity cutoff, both generous enough to satisfy everyone. Too big 
a dataset to post to this list, but I hope to be doing this 
eventually, starting with wedgies.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9454

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:56:01

Subject: Re: rank complexity explanation updated

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> >> When a listener hears a melody in a fixed scale, we assume she *
> >> >
> >> >> Hi Paul,
> >> 
> >> I'm afraid I don't know what an "external" interval is.  Here's
> >> the interval matrix of the diatonic scale in 12-equal, as given
> >> by Scala...
> >> 
> >> 100.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  11 12
> >> 200.0 : 2  3  5  7  9  10 12
> >> 400.0 : 1  3  5  7  8  10 12
> >> 500.0 : 2  4  6  7  9  11 12
> >> 700.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  10 12
> >> 900.0 : 2  3  5  7  8  10 12
> >> 1100.0: 1  3  5  6  8  10 12
> >
> >Q: Shouldn't the first row be 000.0?
> 
> It is quite safe to ignore the values before the colon, as they
> are merely an artifact of scala's output.

What kind of artifact are they, if not an error?


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9455

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:51:30

Subject: Re: Graef article on rationalization of scales

From: Carl Lumma

>> Since you practically single-handedly launched the 'popular scales
>> are good PBs' program, I find it highly unusual that you are now
>> asking me what it is.
>
>Now I understand you better. Yet, 'popular scales' will often have a 
>large number of plausible derivations from a PB,

You mean to a PB, I think?

>in terms of its shape, its position in the lattice, and the unison
>vectors involved, so going from the scale to the PB still seems like
>a step backwards, a step from greater generality to lesser generality.

True, but we're not necessarily interested in a particular one.
If we are, it seems Gene has or is close to having tools to transform
between them, define a canonical one, etc.  But if your 'the basis
doesn't matter' reasoning applied to blocks, we might say that all
alternate PB versions ought to have the same goodness.  If we could
then further show that historical scales correspond to gooder blocks
than random scales...

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9456

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:59:30

Subject: Re: 114 7-limit temperaments

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> 
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> 
wrote:
> 
> > I could do that, but as this was done with a log-flat badness 
cutoff, 
> > there will be a huge gaping hole in the graph. That's why I'm 
trying 
> > to figure out the whole deal for myself, but no one's helping.
> 
> Try asking for some specific form of help.

I'm afraid I've done my best. Perhaps the way I'm seeing this stuff 
bears no resemblance to the way anyone else is, but I do think it's 
important that I understand it all myself, in at least one way.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9457

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:00:39

Subject: Re: 114 7-limit temperaments

From: Carl Lumma

>> Manuel, at least, has 
>> always insisted that simpler ratios need to be tuned more accurately, 
>> and harmonic entropy and all the other discordance functions I've 
>> seen show that the increase in discordance for a given amount of 
>> mistuning is greatest for the simplest intervals.
>
>But surely it's obvious that beat rates go up as something like error
>_times_ complexity, not down as error _divided_by_ complexity, even
>though beat amplitudes do go down.

Without evaluating this, I'll claim that beat rates are not a good
indicator of discordance.

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9458

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:57:42

Subject: Re: Graef article on rationalization of scales

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> This raises an interesting question.  What is our approved method
> >> for finding Fokker blocks for an arbitrary irrational scale?
> >> Such a method would surely make Graf's look silly.
> >
> >All such methods are silly,
> 
> Perhaps you mean Graf's idea of people wanting "just" versions of
> arbitrary scales is silly.  That's for sure.

Yup.

> >but I prefer the hexagonal (rhombic dodecahedral, etc.) or Kees
> >blocks that result from the min-"odd-limit" criterion. But the
> >whole idea of rationalizing a tempered scale is completely
> >backwards and misses the point in a big way.
> 
> I think you missed my point.

Would you, then, clarify your point, perhaps with examples?


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9459

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:01:15

Subject: Re: rank complexity explanation updated

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad" 
<paul.hjelmstad@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> > >> >> When a listener hears a melody in a fixed scale, we assume she *
> > >> >
> > >> >> Hi Paul,
> > >> 
> > >> I'm afraid I don't know what an "external" interval is.  Here's
> > >> the interval matrix of the diatonic scale in 12-equal, as given
> > >> by Scala...
> > >> 
> > >> 100.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  11 12
> > >> 200.0 : 2  3  5  7  9  10 12
> > >> 400.0 : 1  3  5  7  8  10 12
> > >> 500.0 : 2  4  6  7  9  11 12
> > >> 700.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  10 12
> > >> 900.0 : 2  3  5  7  8  10 12
> > >> 1100.0: 1  3  5  6  8  10 12
> > >
> > >Q: Shouldn't the first row be 000.0?
> > 
> > It is quite safe to ignore the values before the colon, as they
> > are merely an artifact of scala's output.
> > 
> > >Another point,
> > >
> > >One can obtain "my" interval vector from "your" interval matrix
> > >by tallying all the intervals from 1 to 6 and ignoring 7 to 12.
> > >You subsequently obtain (2,5,4,3,6,1)
> > 
> > Sorry, but how does tallying numbers in the above matrix lead to
> > (2,5,4,3,6,1)?
> > -Carl
> 
> Easy! There are 2 1's, 5 2's 4 3's 3 4's 6 5's and 1 6. 

I see 2 6's ;)

>(Also works 
> for 7-11, in reverse from 6:, so the full vector is 
> (2,5,4,3,6,1,6,3,4,5,2, and 7 if you include '12') (same as '0')
> > - Paul

This time there *really* should be 2 6's.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9460

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:03:33

Subject: Re: rank complexity explanation updated

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> 
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> 
> > 100.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  11 12
> > 200.0 : 2  3  5  7  9  10 12
> > 400.0 : 1  3  5  7  8  10 12
> > 500.0 : 2  4  6  7  9  11 12
> > 700.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  10 12
> > 900.0 : 2  3  5  7  8  10 12
> > 1100.0: 1  3  5  6  8  10 12
> 
> Why is the first row 100.0 and not 000.0? I also see I had the wrong
> definition of interval matrix; maybe this one would have a more
> interesting characteristic polynomial. I'd like something that told 
me
> something about the scale!

The interval matrix often, if not typically, has all unisons/octaves 
along the diagonal. This one is merely a reshuffling so that the 
diagonal becomes a right vertical.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9461

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:19:38

Subject: Re: 114 7-limit temperaments

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:
> > > This comparison of different outputs for the same temperament 
shows 
> > up
> > > the need to correctly normalise the new weighted error and 
> > complexity
> > > figures so they actually have units we can relate to. i.e. 
cents for
> > > the error and gens per interval for the complexity.
> > > 
> > > This should be simple to do.
> > > 
> > > I think the correct normalisation of a weighted norm is the one 
> > where,
> > > if every individual value happened to be X then the, the norm 
would
> > > also be X, irrespective of the weights.
> > > 
> > > e.g. if the individual errors are E1, E2, ... En,
> > 
> > You realize that there are an infinite number of errors in the 
TOP 
> > case.
> 
> No I didn't. How do you mean?

It's the minimax over *all* intervals.

> Obviously you don't do an infinite
> number of calculations. 

No, you only need to set the primes, and the rest falls out correctly.

>But even so, the normalisation factor may
> still converge.

Yes, it may.

> If it's a minimax type of thing then all we need is to divide the
> current result by the maximum weight of any interval.

This doesn't seem right -- what's your reasoning?

> Let me guess:
> this is lg2(2) = 1 so there would be no change?

There is no need to use base 2 -- the result is the same regardless 
of which base you use in the logarithms. The error is measured using 
logarithms, but so is the complexity = log(n*d), so error divided by 
complexity, which is what you're minimizing the maximum of, is 
insensitive to choice of base.

> Is the weighting the same for the complexity? Minimax where gens per
> interval is divided by lg2(product_complexity(interval))?

No particular generator basis is assumed in the TOP complexity 
calculations. Instead, it's a direct measure of how much the 
tempering simplifies the lattice, and reduces (Gene seems to 
imply/agree) to the number of notes per acoustic whatever in the case 
of equal (1-dimensional) temperaments.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9462

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:28:24

Subject: Re: Graef article on rationalization of scales

From: Carl Lumma

>> >Now I understand you better. Yet, 'popular scales' will often have 
>> >a large number of plausible derivations from a PB,
>> 
>> You mean to a PB, I think?
>
>A gets derived *from* B, it doesn't get derived *to* B, right?

Sure.  I guess what threw me is that you expect multiple PBs,
and "from a PB" sounds very singular.

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9465

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:41:23

Subject: Re: rank complexity explanation updated

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad" 
<paul.hjelmstad@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad" 
> <paul.hjelmstad@u...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> 
> > wrote:
> > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad" 
> > > <paul.hjelmstad@u...> wrote:
> > > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> 
> wrote:
> > > > > >> >> When a listener hears a melody in a fixed scale, we assume she *
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >> Hi Paul,
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> I'm afraid I don't know what an "external" interval is.  
> > Here's
> > > > > >> the interval matrix of the diatonic scale in 12-equal, 
as 
> > given
> > > > > >> by Scala...
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> 100.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  11 12
> > > > > >> 200.0 : 2  3  5  7  9  10 12
> > > > > >> 400.0 : 1  3  5  7  8  10 12
> > > > > >> 500.0 : 2  4  6  7  9  11 12
> > > > > >> 700.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  10 12
> > > > > >> 900.0 : 2  3  5  7  8  10 12
> > > > > >> 1100.0: 1  3  5  6  8  10 12
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Q: Shouldn't the first row be 000.0?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is quite safe to ignore the values before the colon, as 
> they
> > > > > are merely an artifact of scala's output.
> > > > > 
> > > > > >Another point,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >One can obtain "my" interval vector from "your" interval 
> matrix
> > > > > >by tallying all the intervals from 1 to 6 and ignoring 7 
to 
> 12.
> > > > > >You subsequently obtain (2,5,4,3,6,1)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry, but how does tallying numbers in the above matrix 
lead 
> to
> > > > > (2,5,4,3,6,1)?
> > > > > -Carl
> > > > 
> > > > Easy! There are 2 1's, 5 2's 4 3's 3 4's 6 5's and 1 6. 
> > > 
> > > I see 2 6's ;)
> > 
> > Good eye!
> > > 
> > > >(Also works 
> > > > for 7-11, in reverse from 6:, so the full vector is 
> > > > (2,5,4,3,6,1,6,3,4,5,2, and 7 if you include '12') (same 
as '0')
> > > > > - Paul
> > > 
> > > This time there *really* should be 2 6's.
> > 
> > However, Since this is the same tritone (F-B and B-F) John Rahn
> > and Allen Forte both divide this by 2. 2/2 =1
> 
> Oops! In this vector there should be 2 6's. Your right, I'm left!

Looks like we're fully agreed, then.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9466

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:40:47

Subject: Re: rank complexity explanation updated

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad" 
<paul.hjelmstad@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> 
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad" 
> > <paul.hjelmstad@u...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> 
wrote:
> > > > >> >> When a listener hears a melody in a fixed scale, we assume she *
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> Hi Paul,
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> I'm afraid I don't know what an "external" interval is.  
> Here's
> > > > >> the interval matrix of the diatonic scale in 12-equal, as 
> given
> > > > >> by Scala...
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> 100.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  11 12
> > > > >> 200.0 : 2  3  5  7  9  10 12
> > > > >> 400.0 : 1  3  5  7  8  10 12
> > > > >> 500.0 : 2  4  6  7  9  11 12
> > > > >> 700.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  10 12
> > > > >> 900.0 : 2  3  5  7  8  10 12
> > > > >> 1100.0: 1  3  5  6  8  10 12
> > > > >
> > > > >Q: Shouldn't the first row be 000.0?
> > > > 
> > > > It is quite safe to ignore the values before the colon, as 
they
> > > > are merely an artifact of scala's output.
> > > > 
> > > > >Another point,
> > > > >
> > > > >One can obtain "my" interval vector from "your" interval 
matrix
> > > > >by tallying all the intervals from 1 to 6 and ignoring 7 to 
12.
> > > > >You subsequently obtain (2,5,4,3,6,1)
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, but how does tallying numbers in the above matrix lead 
to
> > > > (2,5,4,3,6,1)?
> > > > -Carl
> > > 
> > > Easy! There are 2 1's, 5 2's 4 3's 3 4's 6 5's and 1 6. 
> > 
> > I see 2 6's ;)
> 
> Good eye!
> > 
> > >(Also works 
> > > for 7-11, in reverse from 6:, so the full vector is 
> > > (2,5,4,3,6,1,6,3,4,5,2, and 7 if you include '12') (same as '0')
> > > > - Paul
> > 
> > This time there *really* should be 2 6's.
> 
> However, Since this is the same tritone (F-B and B-F) John Rahn
> and Allen Forte both divide this by 2. 2/2 =1

I didn't know they ever used the "full vector", but if they did, I 
would disagree. Only in the tally of interval *classes*, which go 
from 1 to 6, should you divide the tritone count by 2. That's why I 
wrote a smiley-face in the first case above -- I was winking to you 
because in that case, we both know the tritone count should be 
divided by 2.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9469

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:08:50

Subject: Re: rank complexity explanation updated

From: Carl Lumma

>> >> >> When a listener hears a melody in a fixed scale, we assume she *
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi Paul,
>> >> 
>> >> I'm afraid I don't know what an "external" interval is.  Here's
>> >> the interval matrix of the diatonic scale in 12-equal, as given
>> >> by Scala...
>> >> 
>> >> 100.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  11 12
>> >> 200.0 : 2  3  5  7  9  10 12
>> >> 400.0 : 1  3  5  7  8  10 12
>> >> 500.0 : 2  4  6  7  9  11 12
>> >> 700.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  10 12
>> >> 900.0 : 2  3  5  7  8  10 12
>> >> 1100.0: 1  3  5  6  8  10 12
>> >
>> >Q: Shouldn't the first row be 000.0?
>> 
>> It is quite safe to ignore the values before the colon, as they
>> are merely an artifact of scala's output.
>
>What kind of artifact are they, if not an error?

They indicate the interval between 1/1 and the degree of the
original 'native' mode, on which the mode shown on the particular
line is based.

In this case they are artifactal only because they are given in
different units than is the interval matrix itself.

This happened because I wanted to give the interval matrix in
'steps of 12-tET' units.  Unfortunately (and one of my biggest
desired features) Scala does not offer 'degrees of n-ET' units.
So what you see above is actually the RANK ORDER MATRIX of the
diatonic scale in 12-tET.  Because the scale covers every degree
of that tuning the two are the same.

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9470

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 01:15:56

Subject: 41 "Hermanic" 7-limit linear temperaments (was: Re: 114 7-limit temperaments)

From: Paul Erlich

Since Herman has expressed his preferences as regards badness 
functions, and his interest in "#82", I thought I'd cull the list of 
114 by applying a more stringent cutoff of 1.355*comp + error < 
10.71. This is an arbitrary choice among the linear functions of 
complexity and error that could be chosen; it's chosen so that 
Miracle, Blackwood, and Diaschismic make it in, but unfortunately 
Waage does not. A slightly higher cutoff would take us outside Gene's 
search range, but would probably still add temperaments of interest 
to Herman. Anyway, here's the resulting list top-41 list:

 Number 1 Meantone
 
 [1, 4, 10, 4, 13, 12] [[1, 2, 4, 7], [0, -1, -4, -10]]
 TOP tuning [1201.698521, 1899.262909, 2790.257556, 3370.548328]
 TOP generators [1201.698520, 504.1341314]
 bad: 6.5251 comp: 3.562072 err: 1.698521

 Number 2 Magic
 
 [5, 1, 12, -10, 5, 25] [[1, 0, 2, -1], [0, 5, 1, 12]]
 TOP tuning [1201.276744, 1903.978592, 2783.349206, 3368.271877]
 TOP generators [1201.276744, 380.7957184]
 bad: 7.0687 comp: 4.274486 err: 1.276744

 Number 3 Pajara
 
 [2, -4, -4, -11, -12, 2] [[2, 3, 5, 6], [0, 1, -2, -2]]
 TOP tuning [1196.893422, 1901.906680, 2779.100462, 3377.547174]
 TOP generators [598.4467109, 106.5665459]
 bad: 7.1567 comp: 2.988993 err: 3.106578

 Number 4 Semisixths
 
 [7, 9, 13, -2, 1, 5] [[1, -1, -1, -2], [0, 7, 9, 13]]
 TOP tuning [1198.389531, 1903.732520, 2790.053107, 3364.304748]
 TOP generators [1198.389531, 443.1602931]
 bad: 7.8851 comp: 4.630693 err: 1.610469

 Number 5 Dominant Seventh
 
 [1, 4, -2, 4, -6, -16] [[1, 2, 4, 2], [0, -1, -4, 2]]
 TOP tuning [1195.228951, 1894.576888, 2797.391744, 3382.219933]
 TOP generators [1195.228951, 495.8810151]
 bad: 8.0970 comp: 2.454561 err: 4.771049

 Number 6 Injera
 
 [2, 8, 8, 8, 7, -4] [[2, 3, 4, 5], [0, 1, 4, 4]]
 TOP tuning [1201.777814, 1896.276546, 2777.994928, 3378.883835]
 TOP generators [600.8889070, 93.60982493]
 bad: 8.2512 comp: 3.445412 err: 3.582707

 Number 7 Kleismic
 
 [6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] [[1, 0, 1, 2], [0, 6, 5, 3]]
 TOP tuning [1203.187308, 1907.006766, 2792.359613, 3359.878000]
 TOP generators [1203.187309, 317.8344609]
 bad: 8.3168 comp: 3.785579 err: 3.187309

 Number 8 Hemifourths
 
 [2, 8, 1, 8, -4, -20] [[1, 2, 4, 3], [0, -2, -8, -1]]
 TOP tuning [1203.668842, 1902.376967, 2794.832500, 3358.526166]
 TOP generators [1203.668841, 252.4803582]
 bad: 8.3374 comp: 3.445412 err: 3.66884

 Number 9 Negri
 
 [4, -3, 2, -14, -8, 13] [[1, 2, 2, 3], [0, -4, 3, -2]]
 TOP tuning [1203.187308, 1907.006766, 2780.900506, 3359.878000]
 TOP generators [1203.187309, 124.8419629]
 bad: 8.3420 comp: 3.804173 err: 3.187309

 Number 10 Tripletone
 
 [3, 0, -6, -7, -18, -14] [[3, 5, 7, 8], [0, -1, 0, 2]]
 TOP tuning [1197.060039, 1902.640406, 2793.140092, 3377.079420]
 TOP generators [399.0200131, 92.45965769]
 bad: 8.4214 comp: 4.045351 err: 2.939961

 Number 11 Schismic
 
 [1, -8, -14, -15, -25, -10] [[1, 2, -1, -3], [0, -1, 8, 14]]
 TOP tuning [1200.760625, 1903.401919, 2784.194017, 3371.388750]
 TOP generators [1200.760624, 498.1193303]
 bad: 8.5260 comp: 5.618543 err: .912904

 Number 12 Superpythagorean
 
 [1, 9, -2, 12, -6, -30] [[1, 2, 6, 2], [0, -1, -9, 2]]
 TOP tuning [1197.596121, 1905.765059, 2780.732078, 3374.046608]
 TOP generators [1197.596121, 489.4271829]
 bad: 8.6400 comp: 4.602303 err: 2.403879

 Number 13 Orwell
 
 [7, -3, 8, -21, -7, 27] [[1, 0, 3, 1], [0, 7, -3, 8]]
 TOP tuning [1199.532657, 1900.455530, 2784.117029, 3371.481834]
 TOP generators [1199.532657, 271.4936472]
 bad: 8.6780 comp: 5.706260 err: .946061

 Number 14 Augmented
 
 [3, 0, 6, -7, 1, 14] [[3, 5, 7, 9], [0, -1, 0, -2]]
 TOP tuning [1199.976630, 1892.649878, 2799.945472, 3385.307546]
 TOP generators [399.9922103, 107.3111730]
 bad: 8.7811 comp: 2.147741 err: 5.870879

 Number 15 Porcupine
 
 [3, 5, -6, 1, -18, -28] [[1, 2, 3, 2], [0, -3, -5, 6]]
 TOP tuning [1196.905961, 1906.858938, 2779.129576, 3367.717888]
 TOP generators [1196.905960, 162.3176609]
 bad: 8.9144 comp: 4.295482 err: 3.094040

 Number 16
 
 [6, 10, 10, 2, -1, -5] [[2, 4, 6, 7], [0, -3, -5, -5]]
 TOP tuning [1196.893422, 1906.838962, 2779.100462, 3377.547174]
 TOP generators [598.4467109, 162.3159606]
 bad: 8.9422 comp: 4.306766 err: 3.106578

 Number 17 Supermajor seconds
 
 [3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] [[1, 1, 0, 3], [0, 3, 12, -1]]
 TOP tuning [1201.698521, 1899.262909, 2790.257556, 3372.574099]
 TOP generators [1201.698520, 232.5214630]
 bad: 9.1819 comp: 5.522763 err: 1.698521

 Number 18 Flattone
 
 [1, 4, -9, 4, -17, -32] [[1, 2, 4, -1], [0, -1, -4, 9]]
 TOP tuning [1202.536420, 1897.934872, 2781.593812, 3361.705278]
 TOP generators [1202.536419, 507.1379663]
 bad: 9.1883 comp: 4.909123 err: 2.536420

 Number 19 Diminished
 
 [4, 4, 4, -3, -5, -2] [[4, 6, 9, 11], [0, 1, 1, 1]]
 TOP tuning [1194.128460, 1892.648830, 2788.245174, 3385.309404]
 TOP generators [298.5321149, 101.4561401]
 bad: 9.2912 comp: 2.523719 err: 5.871540

 Number 20
 
 [6, 10, 3, 2, -12, -21] [[1, 2, 3, 3], [0, -6, -10, -3]]
 TOP tuning [1202.659696, 1907.471368, 2778.232381, 3359.055076]
 TOP generators [1202.659696, 82.97467050]
 bad: 9.3161 comp: 4.306766 err: 3.480440

 Number 21
 
 [0, 0, 12, 0, 19, 28] [[12, 19, 28, 34], [0, 0, 0, -1]]
 TOP tuning [1197.674070, 1896.317278, 2794.572829, 3368.825906]
 TOP generators [99.80617249, 24.58395811]
 bad: 9.3774 comp: 4.295482 err: 3.557008

 Number 22
 
 [3, -7, -8, -18, -21, 1] [[1, 3, -1, -1], [0, -3, 7, 8]]
 TOP tuning [1202.900537, 1897.357759, 2790.235118, 3360.683070]
 TOP generators [1202.900537, 570.4479508]
 bad: 9.5280 comp: 4.891080 err: 2.900537

 Number 23
 
 [3, 12, 11, 12, 9, -8] [[1, 3, 8, 8], [0, -3, -12, -11]]
 TOP tuning [1202.624742, 1900.726787, 2792.408176, 3361.457323]
 TOP generators [1202.624742, 569.0491468]
 bad: 9.6275 comp: 5.168119 err: 2.624742

 Number 24 Nonkleismic
 
 [10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] [[1, -1, 0, 1], [0, 10, 9, 7]]
 TOP tuning [1198.828458, 1900.098151, 2789.033948, 3368.077085]
 TOP generators [1198.828458, 309.8926610]
 bad: 9.7206 comp: 6.309298 err: 1.171542

 Number 25 Miracle
 
 [6, -7, -2, -25, -20, 15] [[1, 1, 3, 3], [0, 6, -7, -2]]
 TOP tuning [1200.631014, 1900.954868, 2784.848544, 3368.451756]
 TOP generators [1200.631014, 116.7206423]
 bad: 9.8358 comp: 6.793166 err: .631014

 Number 26 Beatles
 
 [2, -9, -4, -19, -12, 16] [[1, 1, 5, 4], [0, 2, -9, -4]]
 TOP tuning [1197.104145, 1906.544822, 2793.037680, 3369.535226]
 TOP generators [1197.104145, 354.7203384]
 bad: 9.8915 comp: 5.162806 err: 2.895855

 Number 27 -- formerly Number 82
 
 [6, -2, -2, -17, -20, 1] [[2, 2, 5, 6], [0, 3, -1, -1]]
 TOP tuning [1203.400986, 1896.025764, 2777.627538, 3379.328030]
 TOP generators [601.7004928, 230.8749260]
 bad: 10.0002 comp: 4.619353 err: 3.740932

 Number 28
 
 [3, -5, -6, -15, -18, 0] [[1, 3, 0, 0], [0, -3, 5, 6]]
 TOP tuning [1195.486066, 1908.381352, 2796.794743, 3356.153692]
 TOP generators [1195.486066, 559.3589487]
 bad: 10.0368 comp: 4.075900 err: 4.513934

 Number 29
 
 [8, 6, 6, -9, -13, -3] [[2, 5, 6, 7], [0, -4, -3, -3]]
 TOP tuning [1198.553882, 1907.135354, 2778.724633, 3378.001574]
 TOP generators [599.2769413, 272.3123381]
 bad: 10.1077 comp: 5.047438 err: 3.268439

 Number 30 Blackwood
 
 [0, 5, 0, 8, 0, -14] [[5, 8, 12, 14], [0, 0, -1, 0]]
 TOP tuning [1195.893464, 1913.429542, 2786.313713, 3348.501698]
 TOP generators [239.1786927, 83.83059859]
 bad: 10.1851 comp: 2.173813 err: 7.239629

Number 31 Quartaminorthirds
 
 [9, 5, -3, -13, -30, -21] [[1, 1, 2, 3], [0, 9, 5, -3]]
 TOP tuning [1199.792743, 1900.291122, 2788.751252, 3365.878770]
 TOP generators [1199.792743, 77.83315314]
 bad: 10.1855 comp: 6.742251 err: 1.049791

 Number 32
 
 [8, 1, 18, -17, 6, 39] [[1, -1, 2, -3], [0, 8, 1, 18]]
 TOP tuning [1201.135544, 1899.537544, 2789.855225, 3373.107814]
 TOP generators [1201.135545, 387.5841360]
 bad: 10.2131 comp: 6.411729 err: 1.525246

 Number 33
 
 [6, 0, 15, -14, 7, 35] [[3, 5, 7, 9], [0, -2, 0, -5]]
 TOP tuning [1197.060039, 1902.856975, 2793.140092, 3360.572393]
 TOP generators [399.0200131, 46.12154491]
 bad: 10.2154 comp: 5.369353 err: 2.939961

 Number 34
 
 [0, 12, 12, 19, 19, -6] [[12, 19, 28, 34], [0, 0, -1, -1]]
 TOP tuning [1198.015473, 1896.857833, 2778.846497, 3377.854234]
 TOP generators [99.83462277, 16.52294019]
 bad: 10.2188 comp: 5.168119 err: 3.215955

 Number 35
 
 [5, 8, 2, 1, -11, -18] [[1, 2, 3, 3], [0, -5, -8, -2]]
 TOP tuning [1194.335372, 1892.976778, 2789.895770, 3384.728528]
 TOP generators [1194.335372, 99.13879319]
 bad: 10.3332 comp: 3.445412 err: 5.664628

 Number 36
 
 [6, 0, 3, -14, -12, 7] [[3, 4, 7, 8], [0, 2, 0, 1]]
 TOP tuning [1199.400031, 1910.341746, 2798.600074, 3353.970936]
 TOP generators [399.8000105, 155.5708520]
 bad: 10.4461 comp: 3.804173 err: 5.291448


 Number 37
 
 [1, -8, -2, -15, -6, 18] [[1, 2, -1, 2], [0, -1, 8, 2]]
 TOP tuning [1195.155395, 1894.070902, 2774.763716, 3382.790568]
 TOP generators [1195.155395, 496.2398890]
 bad: 10.4972 comp: 4.075900 err: 4.974313

 Number 38 Superkleismic
 
 [9, 10, -3, -5, -30, -35] [[1, 4, 5, 2], [0, -9, -10, 3]]
 TOP tuning [1201.371917, 1904.129438, 2783.128219, 3369.863245]
 TOP generators [1201.371918, 322.3731369]
 bad: 10.5077 comp: 6.742251 err: 1.371918

 Number 39
 
 [9, 0, 9, -21, -11, 21] [[9, 14, 21, 25], [0, 1, 0, 1]]
 TOP tuning [1197.060039, 1897.499011, 2793.140092, 3360.572393]
 TOP generators [133.0066710, 35.40561749]
 bad: 10.6719 comp: 5.706260 err: 2.939961

 Number 40
 
 [6, 0, 0, -14, -17, 0] [[6, 10, 14, 17], [0, -1, 0, 0]]
 TOP tuning [1194.473353, 1901.955001, 2787.104490, 3384.341166]
 TOP generators [199.0788921, 88.83392059]
 bad: 10.7036 comp: 3.820609 err: 5.526647

 Number 41 Diaschismic
 
 [2, -4, -16, -11, -31, -26] [[2, 3, 5, 7], [0, 1, -2, -8]]
 TOP tuning [1198.732403, 1901.885616, 2789.256983, 3365.267311]
 TOP generators [599.3662015, 103.7870123]
 bad: 10.7079 comp: 6.966993 err: 1.267597


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9471

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:11:34

Subject: Re: Graef article on rationalization of scales

From: Carl Lumma

>> >> This raises an interesting question.  What is our approved method
>> >> for finding Fokker blocks for an arbitrary irrational scale?
>> >> Such a method would surely make Graf's look silly.
>> >
>> >All such methods are silly,
>> 
>> Perhaps you mean Graf's idea of people wanting "just" versions of
>> arbitrary scales is silly.  That's for sure.
>
>Yup.
>
>> >but I prefer the hexagonal (rhombic dodecahedral, etc.) or Kees
>> >blocks that result from the min-"odd-limit" criterion. But the
>> >whole idea of rationalizing a tempered scale is completely
>> >backwards and misses the point in a big way.
>> 
>> I think you missed my point.
>
>Would you, then, clarify your point, perhaps with examples?

That the diatonic scale is a 'good' PB seems like the best example.
Since you practically single-handedly launched the 'popular scales
are good PBs' program, I find it highly unusual that you are now
asking me what it is.

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9473

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:20:20

Subject: Re: rank complexity explanation updated

From: Carl Lumma

>> > 100.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  11 12
>> > 200.0 : 2  3  5  7  9  10 12
>> > 400.0 : 1  3  5  7  8  10 12
>> > 500.0 : 2  4  6  7  9  11 12
>> > 700.0 : 2  4  5  7  9  10 12
>> > 900.0 : 2  3  5  7  8  10 12
>> > 1100.0: 1  3  5  6  8  10 12

Gene wrote...

>> Why is the first row 100.0 and not 000.0?

Hopefully you've seen the bit about ignoring these numbers
by now.

>> I also see I had the wrong definition of interval matrix;

That's pretty incredible considering that you've got the
Rothenberg papers on the matter.

Paul wrote...

>The interval matrix often, if not typically, has all unisons/octaves 
>along the diagonal. This one is merely a reshuffling so that the 
>diagonal becomes a right vertical.

No, the interval matrix is always written as above (the values
after the colons, at least).  You're thinking maybe of the
tonality diamond.

-Carl


top of page bottom of page up

Previous Next

9000 9050 9100 9150 9200 9250 9300 9350 9400 9450 9500 9550 9600 9650 9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950

9450 - 9475 -

top of page