Discussion:
Identifying intervals between two numeric positions in a major scale
(too old to reply)
Jonathan
2009-10-01 18:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Are there any tricks for quickly measuring an interval between any two
numeric positions in a major scale?

Example:

II --> IV = Minor third.

Just wondering.

Thanks,
Jonathan
Alain Naigeon
2009-10-01 19:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Are there any tricks for quickly measuring an interval between any two
numeric positions in a major scale?
II --> IV = Minor third.
There's no trick, you have to memorize something.

Or the definition of "major scale", thats is, its structure
(intervals between its consecutive notes) :
1 1 1/2 1 1 1 1/2:
and then the trick consists in adding the relevant values

Or the fact that thirds above I, IV, V are major, all others
being minor.
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - ***@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
Post by Jonathan
Just wondering.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Jonathan
2009-10-01 20:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alain Naigeon
Post by Jonathan
Are there any tricks for quickly measuring an interval between any two
numeric positions in a major scale?
II --> IV = Minor third.
There's no trick, you have to memorize something.
Or the definition of "major scale", thats is, its structure
and then the trick consists in adding the relevant values
Or the fact that thirds above I, IV, V are major, all others
being minor.
--
Français     *==>     "Musique renaissance"     <==*     English
               midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensurationhttp://anaigeon.free.fr|http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
                 http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
Post by Jonathan
Just wondering.
Thanks,
Jonathan
I know all that, but I was wondering if there was a mathematical
formula for this.
tom_k
2009-10-01 20:20:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
I know all that, but I was wondering if there was a mathematical
formula for this.
Alain partially answered your original question - the trick is that for
thirds, the ones above ^1, ^4 and ^5 are major 3rds, the other 4 are minor.
There are only 2 minor 2nds in a major scale: ^3-^4, and ^7-^8 - all other
2nds are major. And you can work out the other intervals if you need to.

Or, assuming a 12 tone chromatic system (this disclaimer is for Han's
benefit!), any interval (scalar or otherwise) may be calculated
mathematically by counting semitones.

For example, from Db up to F# is 5 sts. Then for the interval name, count
the letter names from low to high inclusive (or vice-versa) - in this case
three (D, E, F) so it is some sort of 3rd. For the interval quality, you
need to compare the sts (5) to a M3 (4) or m3 (3). Since 5 is one more than
a major 3rd, Db~F# is an Augmented 3rd.

While this system is very useful for chromatic music, it may not be the
easiest way to learn diatonic intervals.

Tom
Hans Aberg
2009-10-01 20:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by tom_k
Or, assuming a 12 tone chromatic system (this disclaimer is for Han's
benefit!), ...
Have you seen :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first

Hans
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2010-06-10 20:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by tom_k
Or, assuming a 12 tone chromatic system (this disclaimer is for Han's
benefit!), ...
Have you seen :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first
Hans
Sometimes I can make a good guess from looking at raw Hertz figures, fine
tuning them by up to five Hertz, then reducing the fraction.

The problem seems intractable, until I am actually composing with natural
numbers. For example, when I was writing "Morning Has Broken" in just, I ran
into a 23. For my own compositions, I often do not care about primes that
high, unless I really want to write it in more than one part with well-known
harmonies. For something that is supposed to be on the western scale,
though, it should hav a prime limit of seven if not five. So, I looked
through my context and noticed that lots of major and minor thirds were in
that piece, occurring as 25:20, for example. I had started the piece with a
fifteen. Since major thirds hav a denominator of four, re-casting the piece,
starting from sixteen turned out a better version. Even that version had a
peculiarity in it. There was a 32:27 semiditone in it -- still within the
factor-of-three-limit. I could eliminate that semiditone if I multiplied all
of my numbers by five and added one fine note to the piece. One note would
be for making a perfect fourth between 24*5 (120) and 32*5 (160). The other
note would be for making a minor third higher than 27*5 (162). My ears told
me not to bother, because the semiditone works, at least in series on a
monochromatic tune. So, I do not think you will get very far trying to
identify intervals on a major scale, unless you pick a just intonation
layout that is well-suited for your scale -- and your context, as in do you
need a minor sixth?

The bit is in the thread about two schemes for just intonation.
_______
Low numbers is good. Low numbers in ratios is better.
Hans Aberg
2010-06-10 21:31:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Sometimes I can make a good guess from looking at raw Hertz figures, fine
tuning them by up to five Hertz, then reducing the fraction.
That is at 440 Hz 19.562 cents, or between an E53 tonestep of 22.642
cents and and an E72 tonestep of 16.667 cents.
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
The problem seems intractable, until I am actually composing with natural
numbers. For example, when I was writing "Morning Has Broken" in just, I ran
into a 23. For my own compositions, I often do not care about primes that
high, unless I really want to write it in more than one part with well-known
harmonies. For something that is supposed to be on the western scale,
though, it should hav a prime limit of seven if not five. So, I looked
through my context and noticed that lots of major and minor thirds were in
that piece, occurring as 25:20, for example. I had started the piece with a
fifteen. Since major thirds hav a denominator of four, re-casting the piece,
starting from sixteen turned out a better version. Even that version had a
peculiarity in it. There was a 32:27 semiditone in it -- still within the
factor-of-three-limit. I could eliminate that semiditone if I multiplied all
of my numbers by five and added one fine note to the piece. One note would
be for making a perfect fourth between 24*5 (120) and 32*5 (160). The other
note would be for making a minor third higher than 27*5 (162). My ears told
me not to bother, because the semiditone works, at least in series on a
monochromatic tune. So, I do not think you will get very far trying to
identify intervals on a major scale, unless you pick a just intonation
layout that is well-suited for your scale -- and your context, as in do you
need a minor sixth?
So you might use E53 and E72 pin it down roughly, and then convert to
rational numbers. Another is E31, which approximates the 7-limit well
(7/4 on the augmented 6th). A difference between these is the departing
diatonic scale - Just Intonation (JI) is probably closer to E31, though
that those into JI may use the other as reference.

In E53, use the Pythagorean values, and a syntonic comma. In E72, the
interval ratio 5/4 has one tonestep offset from E12, 7/4 and 27/25 two
(but different directions) tonesteps, i.e. in E36, and 11/8 is an
quarter-tone, in E24.

These are easy to compute in the head, though they do not capture more
complex intervals.

Hans
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2010-06-10 20:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by tom_k
Or, assuming a 12 tone chromatic system (this disclaimer is for Han's
benefit!), ...
Have you seen :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first
Hans
Sometimes I can make a good guess from looking at raw Hertz figures, fine
tuning them by up to five Hertz, then reducing the fraction.

The problem seems intractable, until I am actually composing with natural
numbers. For example, when I was writing "Morning Has Broken" in just, I ran
into a 23. For my own compositions, I often do not care about primes that
high, unless I really want to write it in more than one part with well-known
harmonies. For something that is supposed to be on the western scale,
though, it should hav a prime limit of seven if not five. So, I looked
through my context and noticed that lots of major and minor thirds were in
that piece, occurring as 25:20, for example. I had started the piece with a
fifteen. Since major thirds hav a denominator of four, re-casting the piece,
starting from sixteen turned out a better version. Even that version had a
peculiarity in it. There was a 32:27 semiditone in it -- still within the
factor-of-three-limit. I could eliminate that semiditone if I multiplied all
of my numbers by five and added one fine note to the piece. One note would
be for making a perfect fourth between 24*5 (120) and 32*5 (160). The other
note would be for making a minor third higher than 27*5 (162). My ears told
me not to bother, because the semiditone works, at least in series on a
monochromatic tune. So, I do not think you will get very far trying to
identify intervals on a major scale, unless you pick a just intonation
layout that is well-suited for your scale -- and your context, as in do you
need a minor sixth?

The bit is in the thread about two schemes for just intonation.
_______
Low numbers is good. Low numbers in ratios is better.
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2010-06-11 01:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by tom_k
Or, assuming a 12 tone chromatic system (this disclaimer is for Han's
benefit!), ...
Have you seen :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first
Hans
I work in just intonation the vast majority of the time I work at music, so
my last answer was cluttered with 9:8 (sometimes), and I did not think very
hard about "chromatic system" in the context of Hans, which means equal
temperament.

So, 8*(2^(1/12))^2 to 8 == 8.979696386474984 to 8
The next half step is
8*(2^(1/12))^3 to 8.
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2010-06-13 14:58:49 UTC
Permalink
Subject-Was: Re: Identifying intervals between two numeric positions in a
major scale

This helps to explain why some theoretical chords are hard to use in equal
temperament. It also shows which keys are hard to use in duets. Buy the
weigh: cents are ET100, so they are not very useful in showing error in
ET12, for instance. Digits after a period in the first column indicate error
in relation to the harmonic series. I may hav erred in finding the closest
fit to http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html To be sure, I would
need to calculate fractions there in decimals relative to one and sort them.


8.000 C 8:8 Unison
16.951 C+ 17:16 Name conflicts with name in Physics.
8.980 D 9:8 Major Second
19.027 D+ 19:16 Name conflicts with name in Physics.
5.040 E 5:4 Major Third
4.005 F 4:3 Perfect Fourth
7.071 F+ 7:5 Septimal Tritone
2.997 G 3:2 Perfect Fifth
7.937 G+ 8:5 Minor Sixth
26.909 A 27:16 Pythagorean Major Sixth
57.018 A+ 57:32 Obscure 19*3:2^5
15.102 B 15:8 Classic Major Seventh
2.000 C 2:1 Octave

' This is the code I used to calculate the first column:
DIM temp AS DOUBLE
DIM form AS STRING
form = "##.### "
OPEN "con" FOR OUTPUT AS #1
temp = 2 ^ (1 / 12)
PRINT #1, USING form; 16 * temp
PRINT #1, USING form; 8 * temp ^ 2
PRINT #1, USING form; 16 * temp ^ 3
PRINT #1, USING form; 4 * temp ^ 4
PRINT #1, USING form; 3 * temp ^ 5
PRINT #1, USING form; 5 * temp ^ 6
PRINT #1, USING form; 2 * temp ^ 7
PRINT #1, USING form; 5 * temp ^ 8
PRINT #1, USING form; 16 * temp ^ 9
PRINT #1, USING form; 32 * temp ^ 10
PRINT #1, USING form; 8 * temp ^ 11
PRINT #1, USING form; 1 * temp ^ 12
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2010-06-14 03:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Subject-Was: Re: Identifying intervals between two numeric positions in a
major scale

16:9 and 19:18 are better fits than in a post I will cancel. This helps to
explain why some theoretical chords are hard to use in equal temperament. It
also shows which keys are hard to use in duets. Buy the weigh: cents are
ET100, so they amount to one more digit than ET12. Digits after a period in
the first column indicate error in relation to the harmonic series. I may
hav erred in finding the closest fit to
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html To be sure, I would need
to calculate fractions there in decimals relative to one and sort them.

8.000 C 8:8 Unison
19.070 C+ 19:18 Undeviceimal Semitone
8.980 D 9:8 Major Second
19.027 D+ 19:16 Name conflicts with name in Physics.
5.040 E 5:4 Major Third
4.005 F 4:3 Perfect Fourth
7.071 F+ 7:5 Septimal Tritone
2.997 G 3:2 Perfect Fifth
7.937 G+ 8:5 Minor Sixth
26.909 A 27:16 Pythagorean Major Sixth
16.036 A+ 16:9 Pythagorean Minor Seventh
15.102 B 15:8 Classic Major Seventh
2.000 C 2:1 Octave

' This is the code I used to calculate the first column:
DIM temp AS SINGLE
DIM form AS STRING
form = "##.### "
OPEN "con" FOR OUTPUT AS #1
temp = 2 ^ (1 / 12)
PRINT #1, USING form; 16 * temp
PRINT #1, USING form; 8 * temp ^ 2
PRINT #1, USING form; 16 * temp ^ 3
PRINT #1, USING form; 4 * temp ^ 4
PRINT #1, USING form; 3 * temp ^ 5
PRINT #1, USING form; 5 * temp ^ 6
PRINT #1, USING form; 2 * temp ^ 7
PRINT #1, USING form; 5 * temp ^ 8
PRINT #1, USING form; 16 * temp ^ 9
PRINT #1, USING form; 9 * temp ^ 10
PRINT #1, USING form; 8 * temp ^ 11
PRINT #1, USING form; 1 * temp ^ 12
LJS
2010-06-14 18:18:57 UTC
Permalink
If you have read my posts over the years, you will know that I am not
a fan of ratios and comparing the various ET X tunings that have been
used over the years as we eventually found our way to the 12 tet
tuning system we have in use today. In a nut shell, my personal belief
is that this is a lot of science to describe something that I believe
was not so rigid in practice as the scientists' idea of what was in
use by various theorists during the time of their use. I think it is
much more believable that the keyboard tuners and composers used their
ears to tune their instrument and made it work. That said, I do
believe that there is merit in understanding the various ways that it
has been approached in the past.

There is, however, one approach that I have not been able to find as a
way of dealing with the evolution of harmony and melody and the
creation of the major scale over the years.

If you have read my posts over the years, you may have run across my
question of "do you hear the Harmonic Series as Tonic or Dominant?" I
have not seen this addressed very much and I do not know of any tuning
system that has been based upon this concept. The question primarily
focuses upon that 7th element of the Harmonic Series. If this is heard
as (fundamental G) an F nat, then the series is heard as dominant but
if it is heard as an Enat, then the series would be heard as Tonic as
GBDF would spell the V7 chord and the GBDE would spell the I6 chord.

Since the HS is in just about everything we hear and since the higher
one goes into the series the more difficult it is to hear the elements
of the HS, it makes sense to me that this ambiguity of the 7th element
could be the key to the development of the scales as well as the
harmony.

Using the two fundamentals of C and G, we can first take the first 7
elements of the G series and the first three 7 elements of the C
series and create a scale with the notes G B D F from the G series and
the C E G A from the C series and come up with a scale of C D E F G A
B C

Since I am too old to go back and study the ratios (even though Math
was my other choice when I started to formally study music) in order
to answer my own question. Since you seem to be very adept at the
ratios I would hope that you might find it of interest to calculate
the actual result of this merging of the two series to produce a
scale. My guess would be that it would be a bit "smoother" than just
intonation and from a theoretical explanation as to why the most
closely related modulations of the early Post Contrapuntal period were
to the I, IV, V and their relative minor tonics of vi, ii, iii.

The other approach with the HS as the basis of the scales and
harmonies would involve the 3 HS fundamentals of F, C and G and they
would only need the first 5 elements of each series. FAC, CEG and
GBD. This would also yield C D E F G A B C as a combined scale. In
this case I think that the C would be the given note and the P5 below
(F) and the P5 above (G) would be the starting points.

Of course, this may have been worked out before and I just have not
found it. In that case, you might be able to lead me in that
direction. If this has not yet been investigated, I would think that
someone who is adept in the ratios would find this an interesting
project to see what the exact product of these two approaches would
turn out to be as compared to performance practices on non-fixed pitch
instruments. i.e. Strings, winds and voices.

My first thoughts as to an approach would be that since you have the
comparison worked out for the 12-tet and the Just Intonation tunings,
that the fixed constant would be the 12-tet and all other scales could
be compared against this equal tempered constant.

Any weigh, I would be very surprised to be the first person to see
this connection between physics and music, but if you don't know of
how this compares, then I would be very happy if you would run the
numbers on the scales constructed on these two methods.

LJS





On Jun 13, 10:03 pm, "Bohgosity BumaskiL"
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Subject-Was: Re: Identifying intervals between two numeric positions in a
major scale
16:9 and 19:18 are better fits than in a post I will cancel. This helps to
explain why some theoretical chords are hard to use in equal temperament. It
also shows which keys are hard to use in duets. Buy the weigh: cents are
ET100, so they amount to one more digit than ET12. Digits after a period in
the first column indicate error in relation to the harmonic series. I may
hav erred in finding the closest fit tohttp://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.htmlTo be sure, I would need
to calculate fractions there in decimals relative to one and sort them.
 8.000 C   8:8  Unison
19.070 C+ 19:18 Undeviceimal Semitone
 8.980 D   9:8  Major Second
19.027 D+ 19:16 Name conflicts with name in Physics.
 5.040 E   5:4  Major Third
 4.005 F   4:3  Perfect Fourth
 7.071 F+  7:5  Septimal Tritone
 2.997 G   3:2  Perfect Fifth
 7.937 G+  8:5  Minor Sixth
26.909 A  27:16 Pythagorean Major Sixth
16.036 A+ 16:9  Pythagorean Minor Seventh
15.102 B  15:8  Classic Major Seventh
 2.000 C   2:1  Octave
DIM temp AS SINGLE
DIM form AS STRING
form = "##.### "
OPEN "con" FOR OUTPUT AS #1
temp = 2 ^ (1 / 12)
PRINT #1, USING form; 16 * temp
PRINT #1, USING form; 8 * temp ^ 2
PRINT #1, USING form; 16 * temp ^ 3
PRINT #1, USING form; 4 * temp ^ 4
PRINT #1, USING form; 3 * temp ^ 5
PRINT #1, USING form; 5 * temp ^ 6
PRINT #1, USING form; 2 * temp ^ 7
PRINT #1, USING form; 5 * temp ^ 8
PRINT #1, USING form; 16 * temp ^ 9
PRINT #1, USING form; 9 * temp ^ 10
PRINT #1, USING form; 8 * temp ^ 11
PRINT #1, USING form; 1 * temp ^ 12
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2010-06-25 03:14:38 UTC
Permalink
"LJS" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c2049752-9ec5-4412-b7bc-***@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
(...)
Post by LJS
Any weigh, I would be very surprised to be the first person to see
this connection between physics and music, but if you don't know of
how this compares, then I would be very happy if you would run the
numbers on the scales constructed on these two methods.
LJS

http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/equal.mp3
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/just.mp3
Those are 10kb/s stereo files of a chromatic scale from C, where your left
channel would stick at C.
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/compare.mp3
That puts equal on the left channel and just on the right channel, so you
can hear what a few cents is worth to stereophony.

One advantage of just intonation is that I can see harmony. Another
advantage is that even when I do not see, from reducing fractions in my
head, how a harmony works, it might work in my ears. A third advantage is a
lot of obscurities are available to me. That is both a bane and a boon,
because sometimes it forces me to re-cast a tune from scratch. Sometimes, it
lets me offer a work that simply is not possible for any number of tones in
equal temperament. An example is low on my slate, where I make a tune out of
a restricted sudoku, perhaps nine-part harmony, perhaps eighty-one notes.
_______
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/ Podcasting
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2010-06-25 04:26:49 UTC
Permalink
"LJS" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:c2049752-9ec5-4412-b7bc-***@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
(...)
Any weigh, I would be very surprised to be the first person to see
this connection between physics and music, but if you don't know of
how this compares, then I would be very happy if you would run the
numbers on the scales constructed on these two methods.

LJS

http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/equal.mp3
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/just.mp3
Those are 10kb/s stereo files of a chromatic scale from C, where your left
channel would stick at C.
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/compare.mp3
That puts equal on the left channel and just on the right channel, so you
can hear what a few cents is worth to stereophony.

One advantage of just intonation is that I can see harmony. Another
advantage is that even when I do not see, from reducing fractions in my
head, how a harmony works, it might work in my ears. A third advantage is a
lot of obscurities are available to me. That is both a bane and a boon,
because sometimes it forces me to re-cast a tune from scratch. Sometimes, it
lets me offer a work that simply is not practical for any number of tones in
equal temperament. An example is low on my slate, where I make a tune out of
a restricted sudoku, perhaps nine-part harmony, perhaps eighty-one notes.
_______
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/ Podcasting
LJS
2010-06-25 23:41:38 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 24, 11:26 pm, "Bohgosity BumaskiL"
(...)
 Any weigh, I would be very surprised to be the first person to see
 this connection between physics and music, but if you don't know of
 how this compares, then I would be very happy if you would run the
 numbers on the scales constructed on these two methods.
LJS
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/equal.mp3http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/just.mp3
Those are 10kb/s stereo files of a chromatic scale from C, where your left
channel would stick at C.http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/compare.mp3
That puts equal on the left channel and just on the right channel, so you
can hear what a few cents is worth to stereophony.
One advantage of just intonation is that I can see harmony. Another
advantage is that even when I do not see, from reducing fractions in my
head, how a harmony works, it might work in my ears. A third advantage is a
lot of obscurities are available to me. That is both a bane and a boon,
because sometimes it forces me to re-cast a tune from scratch. Sometimes, it
lets me offer a work that simply is not practical for any number of tones in
equal temperament. An example is low on my slate, where I make a tune out of
a restricted sudoku, perhaps nine-part harmony, perhaps eighty-one notes.
_______http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/Podcasting
Thank you for the reply. Currently I am on vacation in Panama but I
will try your mp3 files on just intonation and 12-tet, it should be
interesting.

This, however is not what I am trying to ascertain. I have heard the
difference of Just and ET over the years and your mp3 sound like a
good way to hear it But I am trying to compare the 12-tet and the Just
to the concept that I outlined using the two and or three fundamentals
a 5th away and the tones I extracted through the mentioned elements of
the OTS

I realize that this would require additional research or another
program for you to create. The thing is, I can't find any research on
what I have proposed, and thus it should be an interesting project for
one that has the interest and resources that you seem to have.

I really find it hard to believe that no one has researched what I
mentioned before, but I can't find anything on it. Can you?

Thanks for the reply, and if you are interested, you may of course
contact me personally and I will give ou all the details of what I am
talking about. With the resources that I see you using in this group,
I think that it would be a piece of cake for you to make the
comparison. If I still had my TRS-80, I could run your programs and
probably create my own, but I really would have to start from ground
zero after 45 years of not working with basic and I really don't have
a machine to even run it on. Computers are not my thing any more, but
I do have the theory and from what I can see from the history of music
and tunings, this 2 or 3 related OTS concepts would provide the center
for what all the other "ratio approaches" to tuning are trying to
achieve and it fits quite nicely into concepts such as those proported
by Bernstein as to how the OTS is the basis for the ever increasing
use of the higher partials of the OTS as the harmony evolved through
out the music of Western Civilation.

Anyway, thanks for the interest and let me know if you would like to
persue such a project.

LJS
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2010-06-17 01:55:10 UTC
Permalink
I said that cents are ET100. Actually, they are ET1200. IOW
Cents = reference * 2^(1/1200)^n, where n is your number of cents,
and if your reference is higher than the pitch you want, then division
can be your first operator. Using three decimal places in fractional error
needs less explanation.
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2010-12-31 17:20:57 UTC
Permalink
This is a more complete version of a table I wrote in the middle of last
June to answer a question that was effectively: "What intervals are closest
to Twelve Tone Equal Temperament", which is a microtonal system that works
better on resonant instruments than on synthesizers.

Actual 12TET Ratio Natural Name
Numerator Name
8.000 C 8:8 720 Unison
19.070 C+ 19:18 760 Undeviceimal Semitone
8.980 D 9:8 810 Major Second
19.027 D+ 19:16 855 The nineteenth harmonic is 19:1
5.040 E 5:4 900 Major Third
4.005 F 4:3 960 Perfect Fourth
7.071 F+ 7:5 1008 Septimal Tritone
2.997 G 3:2 1080 Perfect Fifth
7.937 G+ 8:5 1152 Minor Sixth
26.909 A 27:16 1215 Pythagorean Major Sixth
16.036 A+ 16:9 1280 Pythagorean Minor Seventh
15.102 B 15:8 1350 Classic Major Seventh
2.000 C 2:1 1440 Octave

You could use that table to calculate a just intonation that comes close to,
and is more harmonic than equal temperament: Just divide those naturals by
720/(440#/2^(1/12)^33) (IOW, scale 720 to a 12TET C -- subtract twelve from
33 to hit a lower octave). The naturals in column four are on the harmonic
series, so that 720 can be considered as 720:720=1:1. I used 720 as a
reference, because it is the product of all of the greatest prime
denominators or their exponents, IOW: 720=16*5*9, which is the lowest number
that can be evenly divided by any of the above denominators (divided by any
of the above denominators with no remainder).

The advantage of providing naturals in this form is that you can find the
interval between any two notes by making them into a fraction and reducing
it. For example, E:D is 900:810, which reduces to (simplifies at) 10:9.

I think the most important question for a piano tuner is whether a pianist
will be training a-cappella vocalists. Other systems of just intonation
provide more of the harmonies that vocalists would recognize as stable. The
last twelve-tone just intonation I was admiring uses 360 as a reference, so
I believe it to be more sound than what is above. However, another question
for a piano tuner to ask is how much time a pianist spends practising pieces
composed before the twentieth century: Public Domain Christmas carols,
Mozart, Bach, and at least ten other classical heavyweights.
_______
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/
Hans Aberg
2011-01-01 13:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
This is a more complete version of a table I wrote in the middle of last
June to answer a question that was effectively: "What intervals are closest
to Twelve Tone Equal Temperament", which is a microtonal system that works
better on resonant instruments than on synthesizers.
E12 is only a very good approximation of the 3-limit, and a fairly good
for the 5-limit. If you want to get a good system to compute its
relation to the 11-limit, E72, which divides each E12 tonestep into six
equal parts, may be a candidate:

The octave 2 is exact and the perfect fifth 3/2 is 7 E12 -1.955 c
(cents). The major third 5/4 is 3 E12 tonesteps minus one E72 + 2.980 c.
The interval 7/4 is 10 E12 minus 2 E72 + 2.159 c. The interval 11/8 is 6
E12 minus 3 E72 + 1.318 c (a slightly sharp E12 quarter tone).
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2011-01-02 13:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
This is a more complete version of a table I wrote in the middle of last
June to answer a question that was effectively: "What intervals are closest
to Twelve Tone Equal Temperament", which is a microtonal system that works
better on resonant instruments than on synthesizers.
E12 is only a very good approximation of the 3-limit, and a fairly good
for the 5-limit. If you want to get a good system to compute its relation
to the 11-limit, E72, which divides each E12 tonestep into six equal
The biggest problem with 72TET is that your hand is not big enough to span
an octave, so as long as you are writing synthesizer code with arabic
numbers for notes, then why not write exact ratios. Hint: That rules out
1200TET, plus, since you can reduce the fractions you are writing, you can
name the ratio. And it helps to reduce fractions in monochromatic pieces,
too. That is why I do it, although I did not do it in my last synth piece. I
will do that.
Post by Hans Aberg
The octave 2 is exact and the perfect fifth 3/2 is 7 E12 -1.955 c (cents).
The major third 5/4 is 3 E12 tonesteps minus one E72 + 2.980 c. The
interval 7/4 is 10 E12 minus 2 E72 + 2.159 c. The interval 11/8 is 6 E12
minus 3 E72 + 1.318 c (a slightly sharp E12 quarter tone).
I wiL never write error in cents. I wiL olwayz do it in decimal error for
either the numerator or denominator, and olwayz in relation to a documented
harmony. Someone from milnet mentioned that tolerance is for a perfect
fourth, and I've used a narrow forth: It is better than anything in between.
_______
The cause of Protease Resistant Protein wiL olwayz survive a fire.
Hans Aberg
2011-01-02 14:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
This is a more complete version of a table I wrote in the middle of last
June to answer a question that was effectively: "What intervals are closest
to Twelve Tone Equal Temperament", which is a microtonal system that works
better on resonant instruments than on synthesizers.
E12 is only a very good approximation of the 3-limit, and a fairly good
for the 5-limit. If you want to get a good system to compute its relation
to the 11-limit, E72, which divides each E12 tonestep into six equal
The biggest problem with 72TET is that your hand is not big enough to span
an octave, ...
I was just thinking of it as a theoretical tool, to pin down those
intervals relative E12. It is easy to remember: partials 2 and 3 within
E12, 5 lowers 1/6 E12 tonestep, 7 lowers 2/16, and 11 lowers 3/16.
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
...so as long as you are writing synthesizer code with arabic
numbers for notes, then why not write exact ratios. Hint: That rules out
1200TET, plus, since you can reduce the fractions you are writing, you can
name the ratio. And it helps to reduce fractions in monochromatic pieces,
too. That is why I do it, although I did not do it in my last synth piece. I
will do that.
I think one should have a keyboard with the notes one intends to play. A
2-dimensional layout may help.
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Post by Hans Aberg
The octave 2 is exact and the perfect fifth 3/2 is 7 E12 -1.955 c (cents).
The major third 5/4 is 3 E12 tonesteps minus one E72 + 2.980 c. The
interval 7/4 is 10 E12 minus 2 E72 + 2.159 c. The interval 11/8 is 6 E12
minus 3 E72 + 1.318 c (a slightly sharp E12 quarter tone).
I wiL never write error in cents. I wiL olwayz do it in decimal error for
either the numerator or denominator, and olwayz in relation to a documented
harmony. Someone from milnet mentioned that tolerance is for a perfect
fourth, and I've used a narrow forth: It is better than anything in between.
Though it does not matter how you notate your intervals, I have found
cents very useful.

In one program for intervals, I decided to use for exact intervals the
rationals with roots adjoined, represented as a map (associative array)
from prime numbers to rational numbers. Then it proves inconvenient to
use that for inexact intervals, so I admitted to using a floating point
number as well. Though it is just represented as interval ratio
internally, it is convenient to write it out as cents.
Vilen
2011-01-03 07:02:33 UTC
Permalink
"LJS" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2049752-9ec5-4412-
Post by LJS
Since the HS is in just about everything we hear and since the higher
one goes into the series the more difficult it is to hear the elements
of the HS, it makes sense to me that this ambiguity of the 7th element
could be the key to the development of the scales as well as the
harmony.
Of course You know, that the piano is designed in the way which
excludes 7th harmonic. If seems very doubtful that inevitable
deviations of some harmonics from ET scale may be basis of essential
harmony development. But it is possible to use 7th harmonic for
development of music styles. For example, have You seen the site
http://www.primasounds.com/chakramusic/the-seventh-harmonic/ ?

You wrote in the message
https://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.theory/browse_thread/thread/a022aeac817f3123/5cde1d04613ba7db
Post by LJS
I do have the theory and from what I can see from the history of music
and tunings, this 2 or 3 related OTS concepts would provide the center
for what all the other "ratio approaches" to tuning are trying to
achieve and it fits quite nicely into concepts such as those proported
by Bernstein as to how the OTS is the basis for the ever increasing
use of the higher partials of the OTS as the harmony evolved through
out the music of Western Civilation.
I think that the statement that OTS is basis for increasing
use of the higher partials of the OTS is somewhat tautology.
Concerning exactly increasing use of higher partials I suppose that it
is follows from "ever wider definition of consonance"(wikipedia).

Such old and most popular instruments as violin, guitar and human
voice are characterized by considerable content of higher partials.
Apparently „ever increasing“ using of extended chords is meant. I like
to think that it is rather may be explained by Huron's hypothesis that
as the number of apparent sound sources is increased, the overall
perceived dissonance is reduced (correlation with numerousity). See
http://www.musiccog.ohio-state.edu/Music829B/main.theories.html

In the same time higher partials increase horizontal ties of music
segments.

Yuri Vilenkin
J.B. Wood
2011-01-03 11:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vilen
Of course You know, that the piano is designed in the way which
excludes 7th harmonic.
Hello, and could you please elaborate? I wasn't aware of that design
parameter. I think if you examine a vibrating string(s) on a piano or
any other string instrument you'll find that all partials having various
amplitudes are generated. Certainly partials (harmonics) are at least
indirectly controlled as the instrument maker strives to create a
particular timbre/sonic quality via string composition, thickness,
tension, etc. Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Vilen
2011-01-03 13:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vilen
Of course You know, that the piano is designed in the way which
excludes 7th harmonic.
Hello, and could you please elaborate?  I wasn't aware of that design
parameter.  I think if you examine a vibrating string(s) on a piano or
any other string instrument you'll find that all partials having various
amplitudes are generated.  Certainly partials (harmonics) are at least
indirectly controlled as the instrument maker strives to create a
particular timbre/sonic quality via string composition, thickness,
tension, etc.  Sincerely,
--
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
At least Steinway piano. Please, see
the letter of Berlioz on the site http://www.steinwaypianos.com/artists/immortals
.

Sincerely,
Yuri Vilenkin
J.B. Wood
2011-01-03 13:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vilen
Post by J.B. Wood
Post by Vilen
Of course You know, that the piano is designed in the way which
excludes 7th harmonic.
Hello, and could you please elaborate? I wasn't aware of that design
parameter. I think if you examine a vibrating string(s) on a piano or
any other string instrument you'll find that all partials having various
amplitudes are generated. Certainly partials (harmonics) are at least
indirectly controlled as the instrument maker strives to create a
particular timbre/sonic quality via string composition, thickness,
tension, etc. Sincerely,
--
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
At least Steinway piano. Please, see
the letter of Berlioz on the site http://www.steinwaypianos.com/artists/immortals
.
Sincerely,
Yuri Vilenkin
Hello, and I took your statement to refer to all pianos regardless of
manufacturer. At the S&S website Berlioz is claiming that S&S "have
discovered the secret of lessening, to an imperceptible point, that
unpleasent harmonic of the minor seventh" While this may be true of the
piano (and perhaps other S&S pianos) on which Berlioz based his
observation, there is no further indication that S&S made this a design
objective. Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Hans Aberg
2011-01-03 14:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vilen
Post by J.B. Wood
Post by Vilen
Of course You know, that the piano is designed in the way which
excludes 7th harmonic.
Hello, and could you please elaborate? I wasn't aware of that design
parameter. I think if you examine a vibrating string(s) on a piano or
any other string instrument you'll find that all partials having various
amplitudes are generated. Certainly partials (harmonics) are at least
indirectly controlled as the instrument maker strives to create a
particular timbre/sonic quality via string composition, thickness,
tension, etc. Sincerely,
At least Steinway piano. Please, see
the letter of Berlioz on the site http://www.steinwaypianos.com/artists/immortals
The problem is known:
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/badnote.html

To avoid the 7th partial, simply pluck the string at a 1/7 (or 2/7) of
its length.

Hans
J.B. Wood
2011-01-03 18:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Vilen
Post by Vilen
Of course You know, that the piano is designed in the way which
excludes 7th harmonic.
Hello, and could you please elaborate? I wasn't aware of that design
parameter. I think if you examine a vibrating string(s) on a piano or
any other string instrument you'll find that all partials having various
amplitudes are generated. Certainly partials (harmonics) are at least
indirectly controlled as the instrument maker strives to create a
particular timbre/sonic quality via string composition, thickness,
tension, etc. Sincerely,
At least Steinway piano. Please, see
the letter of Berlioz on the site
http://www.steinwaypianos.com/artists/immortals
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/badnote.html
To avoid the 7th partial, simply pluck the string at a 1/7 (or 2/7) of
its length.
Hans
Hello, Hans, and now that I've thought about it further it would be
advantageous to reduce 7th harmonic effects on an ET instrument. There
would be a tendency to create beats from the 7th harmonic of, say a C,
and the 4th harmonic of the note (A#/Bb) within the same octave above
it. OTOH, a piano is tuned by adjusting the partials (typically 5ths
and 3rds with certain checks along the way) to have the required number
of beats as prescribed by the tuning, in this case ET. Beats are a fact
of life on an ET-tuned piano but any opportunity to reduce them (e.g.
hammer placement) would be I think desirable. There is always the
counter argument that beats provide the "tension" that can be useful
(the old lemon to lemonade argument) in music composition. Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Hans Aberg
2011-01-03 21:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.B. Wood
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Vilen
Post by Vilen
Of course You know, that the piano is designed in the way which
excludes 7th harmonic.
Hello, and could you please elaborate? I wasn't aware of that design
parameter. I think if you examine a vibrating string(s) on a piano or
any other string instrument you'll find that all partials having various
amplitudes are generated. Certainly partials (harmonics) are at least
indirectly controlled as the instrument maker strives to create a
particular timbre/sonic quality via string composition, thickness,
tension, etc. Sincerely,
At least Steinway piano. Please, see
the letter of Berlioz on the site
http://www.steinwaypianos.com/artists/immortals
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/badnote.html
To avoid the 7th partial, simply pluck the string at a 1/7 (or 2/7) of
its length.
Hello, Hans, and now that I've thought about it further it would be
advantageous to reduce 7th harmonic effects on an ET instrument. There
would be a tendency to create beats from the 7th harmonic of, say a C,
and the 4th harmonic of the note (A#/Bb) within the same octave above
it. OTOH, a piano is tuned by adjusting the partials (typically 5ths and
3rds with certain checks along the way) to have the required number of
beats as prescribed by the tuning, in this case ET. Beats are a fact of
life on an ET-tuned piano but any opportunity to reduce them (e.g.
hammer placement) would be I think desirable. There is always the
counter argument that beats provide the "tension" that can be useful
(the old lemon to lemonade argument) in music composition. Sincerely,
Yes, it seems that one all along since E12 instruments became common in
the 19th century has known that it is about the 5-limit. E31 and
quarter-comma meantone tunings approximate the interval 7/4 well, but it
is on the augmented sixth, which is without the diatonic scale, reducing
its use to as predominant. And the CPP desire of having as little beats
as possible may to do with the acoustics, the reverb: gamelan music is
played outdoor. I Balkan music, it is popular to play in thirds, and the
notes are broken up into shorter durations, so the beat rates cannot
really be heard even in Pythagorean tuning.
J.B. Wood
2011-01-04 11:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Yes, it seems that one all along since E12 instruments became common in
the 19th century has known that it is about the 5-limit. E31 and
quarter-comma meantone tunings approximate the interval 7/4 well, but it
is on the augmented sixth
Hello, Hans, and all. My own research has turned up the names "harmonic
7th", "harmonic minor 7th" and "septimal minor 7th" for the 7/4
interval. Assuming a root note of C, for example, the 7/4 interval, if
treated as a m7, is then associated with the note Bb vice A# (for a M6).
In a 7-limit tuning an I7 chord would have the interval ratios 4:5:6:7
with the septimal m3 in that chord having a pitch ratio of (7/4)/(3/2) =
7/6. We also have the "soft" (relative to the 5-limit) d5 of 7/5. If
we then form a septimal major triad using the 7/6 interval and a 3/2 P5
we have for the septimal M3 a pitch ratio of (3/2)/(7/6) = 9/7. If we
treat the 7/4 as a M6 then we also have to rename these other septimal
intervals. Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Hans Aberg
2011-01-04 17:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Yes, it seems that one all along since E12 instruments became common in
the 19th century has known that it is about the 5-limit. E31 and
quarter-comma meantone tunings approximate the interval 7/4 well, but it
is on the augmented sixth
Hello, Hans, and all. My own research has turned up the names "harmonic
7th", "harmonic minor 7th" and "septimal minor 7th" for the 7/4
interval.
Scala gives the first:
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html
Assuming a root note of C, for example, the 7/4 interval, if
treated as a m7, is then associated with the note Bb vice A# (for a M6).
In what tuning? In E12 it is 31.174 c lower than the m7. To far away for
harmony - thus it is a good idea suppressing it on E12 instruments like
the piano.
In a 7-limit tuning an I7 chord would have the interval ratios 4:5:6:7
with the septimal m3 in that chord having a pitch ratio of (7/4)/(3/2) =
7/6. We also have the "soft" (relative to the 5-limit) d5 of 7/5. If we
then form a septimal major triad using the 7/6 interval and a 3/2 P5 we
have for the septimal M3 a pitch ratio of (3/2)/(7/6) = 9/7. If we treat
the 7/4 as a M6 then we also have to rename these other septimal
intervals.
In E31, all intervals involving the partial 7 are off from the diatonic
major/minor scales by one E31 tonestep.
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-04 18:13:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Post by Hans Aberg
Yes, it seems that one all along since E12 instruments became common in
the 19th century has known that it is about the 5-limit. E31 and
quarter-comma meantone tunings approximate the interval 7/4 well, but it
is on the augmented sixth
Hello, Hans, and all. My own research has turned up the names "harmonic
7th", "harmonic minor 7th" and "septimal minor 7th" for the 7/4
interval.
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html
Assuming a root note of C, for example, the 7/4 interval, if
treated as a m7, is then associated with the note Bb vice A# (for a M6).
In what tuning? In E12 it is 31.174 c lower than the m7. To far away for
harmony -
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
In 12tet G is tuned to 783.991.
The 12tet F#/Gb is 739.989.

770 - 739.989 = 30.011hz.
That's the difference between the frequency of the 7th partial and the
frequency of the 12tet maj 6th/dim 7th.
783.991 - 770 = 13.989hz.
That's the difference between the freq of the 7th partial and the freq
of the 12tet min 7th.
So, the 12tet min 7th is more than twice as close to the pure min 7th as
the 12tet maj 6th.

The pure min 7th *is* the harmonic 7th.
Saying that it is not suitable for harmony flies in the face of what
"being in harmony" actually means.
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
But somehow we humans still use the sound of the 12tet min 7th as being
harmonically representative of the pure min 7th.
I.e. It appears to be close enough for most of us for most purposes,
including harmony.
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
thus it is a good idea suppressing it on E12 instruments like
the piano.
In a 7-limit tuning an I7 chord would have the interval ratios 4:5:6:7
with the septimal m3 in that chord having a pitch ratio of (7/4)/(3/2) =
7/6. We also have the "soft" (relative to the 5-limit) d5 of 7/5. If we
then form a septimal major triad using the 7/6 interval and a 3/2 P5 we
have for the septimal M3 a pitch ratio of (3/2)/(7/6) = 9/7. If we treat
the 7/4 as a M6 then we also have to rename these other septimal
intervals.
In E31, all intervals involving the partial 7 are off from the diatonic
major/minor scales by one E31 tonestep.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-04 19:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Post by Hans Aberg
Yes, it seems that one all along since E12 instruments became common in
the 19th century has known that it is about the 5-limit. E31 and
quarter-comma meantone tunings approximate the interval 7/4 well, but it
is on the augmented sixth
Hello, Hans, and all. My own research has turned up the names "harmonic
7th", "harmonic minor 7th" and "septimal minor 7th" for the 7/4
interval.
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html
Assuming a root note of C, for example, the 7/4 interval, if
treated as a m7, is then associated with the note Bb vice A# (for a M6).
In what tuning? In E12 it is 31.174 c lower than the m7. To far away for
harmony -
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
In 12tet G is tuned to 783.991.
The 12tet F#/Gb is 739.989.
770 - 739.989 = 30.011hz.
That's the difference between the frequency of the 7th partial and the
frequency of the 12tet maj 6th/dim 7th.
783.991 - 770 = 13.989hz.
That's the difference between the freq of the 7th partial and the freq
of the 12tet min 7th.
So, the 12tet min 7th is more than twice as close to the pure min 7th as
the 12tet maj 6th.
It is the augmented 6th, +6, that approximates the interval 7/4 in E31
and quarter-comma meantone. In the E12, +6 and m7 are the same, but both
are too far off from 7/4 to be usable for harmony (see below).
Post by Joey Goldstein
The pure min 7th *is* the harmonic 7th.
I'm not sure how you define it here. Scala defines the harmonic 7th to
be 7/4. The pure, or Just intonation m7 is 9/5 or 16/9 - the definition
varies.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that it is not suitable for harmony flies in the face of what
"being in harmony" actually means.
The interval 7/4 ends up on the +6 in meantone, and in CPP harmony it is
as a predominant (German sixth, etc.) - its use is rather limited.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
Yes, that is what happens.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But somehow we humans still use the sound of the 12tet min 7th as being
harmonically representative of the pure min 7th.
I.e. It appears to be close enough for most of us for most purposes,
including harmony.
No, the other links suggest that as E12 became common, one learned how
to suppress the 7th partial as to avoid the beats it produces. (Berlioz
letter on first link.)
http://www.steinwaypianos.com/artists/immortals
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/badnote.html

You might try this on your guitar. The recipe is that if one strikes the
strings at about 1/7 (or a multiple like 2/7) of its length, the 7th
partial gets suppressed. Try to play the m7, and listen if there is a
difference in beat rates depending on where you strike it. It could of
course be that you like the beat rates or have gotten so used to them
that you do not bother. But the Berlioz letter suggests one did not like
them in the mid-19th century.
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-04 22:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Post by Hans Aberg
Yes, it seems that one all along since E12 instruments became common in
the 19th century has known that it is about the 5-limit. E31 and
quarter-comma meantone tunings approximate the interval 7/4 well, but it
is on the augmented sixth
Hello, Hans, and all. My own research has turned up the names "harmonic
7th", "harmonic minor 7th" and "septimal minor 7th" for the 7/4
interval.
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html
Assuming a root note of C, for example, the 7/4 interval, if
treated as a m7, is then associated with the note Bb vice A# (for a M6).
In what tuning? In E12 it is 31.174 c lower than the m7. To far away for
harmony -
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
In 12tet G is tuned to 783.991.
The 12tet F#/Gb is 739.989.
770 - 739.989 = 30.011hz.
That's the difference between the frequency of the 7th partial and the
frequency of the 12tet maj 6th/dim 7th.
783.991 - 770 = 13.989hz.
That's the difference between the freq of the 7th partial and the freq
of the 12tet min 7th.
So, the 12tet min 7th is more than twice as close to the pure min 7th as
the 12tet maj 6th.
It is the augmented 6th, +6, that approximates the interval 7/4 in E31
and quarter-comma meantone. In the E12, +6 and m7 are the same, but both
are too far off from 7/4 to be usable for harmony (see below).
Yes it's true that in 12tet the aug 6th interval and the min 7th
interval are enharmonic equivalents.
No it is not true that this interval is unsuitable for harmony, as at
least 2 centuries of music will attest too.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The pure min 7th *is* the harmonic 7th.
I'm not sure how you define it here. Scala defines the harmonic 7th to
be 7/4. The pure, or Just intonation m7 is 9/5 or 16/9 - the definition
varies.
Scala shmalla.
What's with you and Scala all the time?
I'm sure that in some just intonations the min 7th interval is tuned to 9:5.
But that's irrelevant to what I'm saying, as far as I can see.
The note that sits at a ratio of 9:5 above A110 would be G198.
9 div by 5 = 1.8.
110 X 1.8 198.
Placed in the same octave as G770 we'd have G792 (198 X 4 = 792).
The difference between G792 and G770 is 22hz.
That's still farther away from G770 than the 12tet G783.991.
So G770, the pure min 7th interval, the fully harmonic min 7th interval,
is what the 12tet G782.991 is approximating.
Just as the 12tet G is a compromise, so is the just G at 9:5.

Players of non-fixed-pitch-instruments (like violins and horns) may
choose between 12tet min 7ths and 9:5 min 7ths routinely, depending on
the demands of the music.
But with large chords, like 9th 11th and 13th chords, especially highly
chromatic music, I'm guessing that they lean towards 12tet min 7ths.
Trying to always manage to play 9:5 as the music moves from key to key
would be very hard to pull off.
But I'd also guess that there are musical settings where their ears and
their intuition will pull them towards 7:4, say in drone based music.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that it is not suitable for harmony flies in the face of what
"being in harmony" actually means.
The interval 7/4 ends up on the +6 in meantone, and in CPP harmony it is
as a predominant (German sixth, etc.) - its use is rather limited.
Right.
The actual usage of the exact interval 7:4 is limited because it has not
been incorporated into any commonly used instruments and because it is
problematic to incorporate in music that uses chords with several
different roots.
If Western musicians were more involved in drone music the 7:4 min 7th
may have been used much more frequently.
But the min 7th interval, as it occurs in 12tet tuning, *IS* used
extensively for both melody and *HARMONY*.
Saying that this interval is not usable harmonically is just nonsense.
And the closest pure interval that is approximated by the 12tet min 7th
is 7:4.
We experience the the 12tet min 7th as an acceptable approximation of
the harmonic interval 7:4.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
Yes, that is what happens.
By your ideas it should happen.
But in reality it doesn't.
Might be time to change your ideas?
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But somehow we humans still use the sound of the 12tet min 7th as being
harmonically representative of the pure min 7th.
I.e. It appears to be close enough for most of us for most purposes,
including harmony.
No, the other links suggest that as E12 became common, one learned how
to suppress the 7th partial as to avoid the beats it produces. (Berlioz
letter on first link.)
http://www.steinwaypianos.com/artists/immortals
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/badnote.html
Those links appear to be talking about the timbre of an instrument and
how that can affect harmonies played upon that instrument.
If the 7th partial of the fundamental tones that the instrument is
capable of producing happens to be beyond a certain threshold of
audibility, then the 7th partial becomes noticeable and annoying.
Those links say nothing about the suitability of 12tet min 7th intervals
themselves for harmony.
Post by Hans Aberg
You might try this on your guitar. The recipe is that if one strikes the
strings at about 1/7 (or a multiple like 2/7) of its length, the 7th
partial gets suppressed.
What do you mean by "suppressed"?
When I play a 1/7 harmonic what I get is the sound of the 7th partial of
the fundamental of the open string.
It's not suppressed in any way that I can see.
Perhaps guitar string manufacturers use processes that suppress the
audibility of the 7th partial.
I'm guessing that if piano manufacturers like Steinway are concerned
about such things that guitar makers probably are as well.
But, again, that's irrelevant to whether or not the 12tet min 7th is
usable for harmony.
Post by Hans Aberg
Try to play the m7, and listen if there is a
difference in beat rates depending on where you strike it.
What beat rates?
If I play a single note that happens to be an harmonic of an open
string, what is that single note supposed to beat against?
Post by Hans Aberg
It could of
course be that you like the beat rates or have gotten so used to them
that you do not bother. But the Berlioz letter suggests one did not like
them in the mid-19th century.
Of course I've gotten used to beats.
Who hasn't?
Every possible interval in 12tet, except the octave and unisons (if
you're lucky, lol), has beats.
That hasn't stopped me from playing and immensely enjoying the sound of
chords on my guitar.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-04 23:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It is the augmented 6th, +6, that approximates the interval 7/4 in E31
and quarter-comma meantone. In the E12, +6 and m7 are the same, but both
are too far off from 7/4 to be usable for harmony (see below).
Yes it's true that in 12tet the aug 6th interval and the min 7th
interval are enharmonic equivalents.
No it is not true that this interval is unsuitable for harmony, as at
least 2 centuries of music will attest too.
Only that it is the 5-limit, not the 7-limit.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The pure min 7th *is* the harmonic 7th.
I'm not sure how you define it here. Scala defines the harmonic 7th to
be 7/4. The pure, or Just intonation m7 is 9/5 or 16/9 - the definition
varies.
Scala shmalla.
What's with you and Scala all the time?
Just that it has a long list of intervals, scales and chords.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm sure that in some just intonations the min 7th interval is tuned to 9:5.
But that's irrelevant to what I'm saying, as far as I can see.
The note that sits at a ratio of 9:5 above A110 would be G198.
9 div by 5 = 1.8.
110 X 1.8 198.
Placed in the same octave as G770 we'd have G792 (198 X 4 = 792).
The difference between G792 and G770 is 22hz.
That is so much that even gamelan musicians would find it too intense.
Far away from the CPP ideal of none.
Post by Joey Goldstein
That's still farther away from G770 than the 12tet G783.991.
So G770, the pure min 7th interval, the fully harmonic min 7th interval,
is what the 12tet G782.991 is approximating.
In E12, 16/9 is -3.910 c lower than m7, 9/5 is 17.596 c higher, and 7/4
is 31.174 c lower. So the rather strong 3-limit 16/9 will not produce
much beats, 9/5 will produce more, but the partial 5 is typically
weaker, and the 7/4 would produce a lot, unless the 7th partial is
suppressed.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Just as the 12tet G is a compromise, so is the just G at 9:5.
Players of non-fixed-pitch-instruments (like violins and horns) may
choose between 12tet min 7ths and 9:5 min 7ths routinely, depending on
the demands of the music.
Yes, all orchestral instruments should be able to adjust beat rates,
when needed. The one with the least room I think may be the oboe, and
the bassoon has n inharmonicity but then the composer should make sure
these effects fit into the music.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But with large chords, like 9th 11th and 13th chords, especially highly
chromatic music, I'm guessing that they lean towards 12tet min 7ths.
Jack Campin mentioned that somebody had measured a Schoenberg quartet
and found they played something like Pythagorean tuning.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Trying to always manage to play 9:5 as the music moves from key to key
would be very hard to pull off.
So they probably adapt as the music goes along. If one pivots adjacent
chords and holds onto to fixed Just intonation ratios, the pitch will
drift - this is called comma pumps. So pitch adjustment on the fly is
necessary.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But I'd also guess that there are musical settings where their ears and
their intuition will pull them towards 7:4, say in drone based music.
If they get close enough, but in CPP music, that would be a +6.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that it is not suitable for harmony flies in the face of what
"being in harmony" actually means.
The interval 7/4 ends up on the +6 in meantone, and in CPP harmony it is
as a predominant (German sixth, etc.) - its use is rather limited.
Right.
The actual usage of the exact interval 7:4 is limited because it has not
been incorporated into any commonly used instruments and because it is
problematic to incorporate in music that uses chords with several
different roots.
Right. Pipe organs may have the partial 7 in special mutation stops, but
they are just used for timbre, not actual playing of pitches.
Post by Joey Goldstein
If Western musicians were more involved in drone music the 7:4 min 7th
may have been used much more frequently.
That is another factor: what one is used to. Musicians that play in E12
all the time, with fixed pitch instruments enforcing it, will probably
play quite close to it.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But the min 7th interval, as it occurs in 12tet tuning, *IS* used
extensively for both melody and *HARMONY*.
Clearly, as the Berlioz letter indicated.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that this interval is not usable harmonically is just nonsense.
It is the distance of the 7/4 to the E12 m7 that causes problems. So
weakening the 7th partial will help it up. That is what Berlioz said.
Post by Joey Goldstein
And the closest pure interval that is approximated by the 12tet min 7th
is 7:4.
No. But the 7/4 is close enough to cause problems if the 7th partial is
string enough.
Post by Joey Goldstein
We experience the the 12tet min 7th as an acceptable approximation of
the harmonic interval 7:4.
To Berlioz, it was unacceptable. If the 7th partial is weakened, the
amplitude of the beats will be weakened, too.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
Yes, that is what happens.
By your ideas it should happen.
But in reality it doesn't.
Might be time to change your ideas?
It does not happen because one strikes the strings so that the 7th
partial becomes weakened. But if one does not do that, one gets the
problem that Berlioz is speaking about.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But somehow we humans still use the sound of the 12tet min 7th as being
harmonically representative of the pure min 7th.
I.e. It appears to be close enough for most of us for most purposes,
including harmony.
No, the other links suggest that as E12 became common, one learned how
to suppress the 7th partial as to avoid the beats it produces. (Berlioz
letter on first link.)
http://www.steinwaypianos.com/artists/immortals
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/badnote.html
Those links appear to be talking about the timbre of an instrument and
how that can affect harmonies played upon that instrument.
If the 7th partial of the fundamental tones that the instrument is
capable of producing happens to be beyond a certain threshold of
audibility, then the 7th partial becomes noticeable and annoying.
Those links say nothing about the suitability of 12tet min 7th intervals
themselves for harmony.
The harmonic stability is just the beats of close pitches among the
partials of the notes played. So if some beats come out strongly, one
can weaken them by either move the frequencies or weaking one of the
partials involved.

Berlioz is noting that the m7 sounds badly but the problem has been
fixed on those grands. The other link says that one can do this by
actually strike the string at 1/7 (or a multiple thereof) of the string
length. This is simple enough to implement in a piano. I haven't had to
time to check if this is what they do, but a quick look suggest this is
what is done.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
You might try this on your guitar. The recipe is that if one strikes the
strings at about 1/7 (or a multiple like 2/7) of its length, the 7th
partial gets suppressed.
What do you mean by "suppressed"?
When I play a 1/7 harmonic what I get is the sound of the 7th partial of
the fundamental of the open string.
It's not suppressed in any way that I can see.
The string has capacity of vibrating in all partials, with some
inharmonicity when to strike or pluck it. When it vibrates, it will
swing in different nodes. By striking it at a 1/7 (or a multiple) of the
length, you suppress the 7th partial.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Perhaps guitar string manufacturers use processes that suppress the
audibility of the 7th partial.
Yes, it should be designed so that it becomes natural to pluck it at
this point. It is up to the musician to adjust so that the chords sound
nice.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm guessing that if piano manufacturers like Steinway are concerned
about such things that guitar makers probably are as well.
But, again, that's irrelevant to whether or not the 12tet min 7th is
usable for harmony.
It is relevant, because if the 7th partial is strong, the the E12 m7
will produce string beats, like it or not.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try to play the m7, and listen if there is a
difference in beat rates depending on where you strike it.
What beat rates?
If I play a single note that happens to be an harmonic of an open
string, what is that single note supposed to beat against?
Play a chord that involves the m7. Then the ideal would be to strike the
string with the lower not at 1/7 (or a multiple) of its length.

Try moving the point where you strike this string up and down, to see if
you hear any difference in the strength of the beats.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It could of
course be that you like the beat rates or have gotten so used to them
that you do not bother. But the Berlioz letter suggests one did not like
them in the mid-19th century.
Of course I've gotten used to beats.
Who hasn't?
Every possible interval in 12tet, except the octave and unisons (if
you're lucky, lol), has beats.
That hasn't stopped me from playing and immensely enjoying the sound of
chords on my guitar.
You might still increase your perception of the difference of the
exercise above. I do not know what you will find, but it seems interesting.
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-05 16:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It is the augmented 6th, +6, that approximates the interval 7/4 in E31
and quarter-comma meantone. In the E12, +6 and m7 are the same, but both
are too far off from 7/4 to be usable for harmony (see below).
Yes it's true that in 12tet the aug 6th interval and the min 7th
interval are enharmonic equivalents.
No it is not true that this interval is unsuitable for harmony, as at
least 2 centuries of music will attest too.
Only that it is the 5-limit, not the 7-limit.
Whatever.
My only reason for entering this thread, which I have not completely
read, was to take issue with your comments that somehow the 12tet min
7th was unsuitable for harmony.
I can't see how anybody could argue that successfully, based on all the
music that's already out there.
If I've misunderstood your comments then I apologize.
Maye it's a language thing with English not being your 1st language.
I dunno.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The pure min 7th *is* the harmonic 7th.
I'm not sure how you define it here. Scala defines the harmonic 7th to
be 7/4. The pure, or Just intonation m7 is 9/5 or 16/9 - the definition
varies.
Scala shmalla.
What's with you and Scala all the time?
Just that it has a long list of intervals, scales and chords.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm sure that in some just intonations the min 7th interval is tuned to 9:5.
But that's irrelevant to what I'm saying, as far as I can see.
The note that sits at a ratio of 9:5 above A110 would be G198.
9 div by 5 = 1.8.
110 X 1.8 198.
Placed in the same octave as G770 we'd have G792 (198 X 4 = 792).
The difference between G792 and G770 is 22hz.
That is so much that even gamelan musicians would find it too intense.
Far away from the CPP ideal of none.
Fine.
But you're the guy making the case for 9:5 as the standard tuning for
"in-tune" min 7ths, not me.
The 12tet min 7th is closer to the pure min 7th than the 9:5 min 7th is.
That's why I still contend that when we hear a 12tet min 7th we hear it
as being representative of 7:4.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
That's still farther away from G770 than the 12tet G783.991.
So G770, the pure min 7th interval, the fully harmonic min 7th interval,
is what the 12tet G782.991 is approximating.
In E12, 16/9 is -3.910 c lower than m7, 9/5 is 17.596 c higher, and 7/4
is 31.174 c lower. So the rather strong 3-limit 16/9 will not produce
much beats, 9/5 will produce more, but the partial 5 is typically
weaker, and the 7/4 would produce a lot, unless the 7th partial is
suppressed.
I don't understand your logic or your point above. Sorry.
But I've noticed that you tend to work backwards from my point of view.
You seem to be starting with 12ET as some sort of standard from
in-tune-ness, and then rate other tunings' suitabilities for harmony
based on how far they've deviated from 12ET.
But 12ET is not then standard upon which harmonicity is based.
The interbals in the harmonic overtone series are the basis for harmonicity.
It's the degree by which an interval deviates from the corresponding OTS
interval that will determine its harmonicity.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Just as the 12tet G is a compromise, so is the just G at 9:5.
Players of non-fixed-pitch-instruments (like violins and horns) may
choose between 12tet min 7ths and 9:5 min 7ths routinely, depending on
the demands of the music.
Yes, all orchestral instruments should be able to adjust beat rates,
when needed. The one with the least room I think may be the oboe, and
the bassoon has n inharmonicity but then the composer should make sure
these effects fit into the music.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But with large chords, like 9th 11th and 13th chords, especially highly
chromatic music, I'm guessing that they lean towards 12tet min 7ths.
Jack Campin mentioned that somebody had measured a Schoenberg quartet
and found they played something like Pythagorean tuning.
Well then, I think that that performance, if they indeed did purposely
go for Pythagorean tuning, probably sounds even more dissonant than it
would in 12TET, unless the piece is written specifically to employ the
available intervals of Pythagorean tuning.
Most atonal music is called 12-tone music for a reason.
It's very existence, IMO, can only come about in 12tet.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Trying to always manage to play 9:5 as the music moves from key to key
would be very hard to pull off.
So they probably adapt as the music goes along. If one pivots adjacent
chords and holds onto to fixed Just intonation ratios, the pitch will
drift - this is called comma pumps. So pitch adjustment on the fly is
necessary.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But I'd also guess that there are musical settings where their ears and
their intuition will pull them towards 7:4, say in drone based music.
If they get close enough, but in CPP music, that would be a +6.
There is no CPP drone music.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that it is not suitable for harmony flies in the face of what
"being in harmony" actually means.
The interval 7/4 ends up on the +6 in meantone, and in CPP harmony it is
as a predominant (German sixth, etc.) - its use is rather limited.
Right.
The actual usage of the exact interval 7:4 is limited because it has not
been incorporated into any commonly used instruments and because it is
problematic to incorporate in music that uses chords with several
different roots.
Right. Pipe organs may have the partial 7 in special mutation stops, but
they are just used for timbre, not actual playing of pitches.
Post by Joey Goldstein
If Western musicians were more involved in drone music the 7:4 min 7th
may have been used much more frequently.
That is another factor: what one is used to. Musicians that play in E12
all the time, with fixed pitch instruments enforcing it, will probably
play quite close to it.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But the min 7th interval, as it occurs in 12tet tuning, *IS* used
extensively for both melody and *HARMONY*.
Clearly, as the Berlioz letter indicated.
The Berlioz letter that I read seemed to be talking about something else
entirely.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that this interval is not usable harmonically is just nonsense.
It is the distance of the 7/4 to the E12 m7 that causes problems. So
weakening the 7th partial will help it up. That is what Berlioz said.
Did he?
That wasn't my understanding of what he said.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
And the closest pure interval that is approximated by the 12tet min 7th
is 7:4.
No.
Yes.
Post by Hans Aberg
But the 7/4 is close enough to cause problems if the 7th partial is
string enough.
Timbrally speaking, yes.
Harmonically speaking, no.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
We experience the the 12tet min 7th as an acceptable approximation of
the harmonic interval 7:4.
To Berlioz, it was unacceptable.
Berlioz refused to have his music performed on 12ET pianos?
News to me.
Post by Hans Aberg
If the 7th partial is weakened, the
amplitude of the beats will be weakened, too.
Again, you're talking about the timbre of a piano, not the usability of
the 12ET min 7th interval for harmony.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
Yes, that is what happens.
By your ideas it should happen.
But in reality it doesn't.
Might be time to change your ideas?
It does not happen because one strikes the strings so that the 7th
partial becomes weakened. But if one does not do that, one gets the
problem that Berlioz is speaking about.
Hans.
Walk over to any piano and play the following chord:
G B D F
Look. There's a min 7th between G and F.
It sounds fine.
End of story.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But somehow we humans still use the sound of the 12tet min 7th as being
harmonically representative of the pure min 7th.
I.e. It appears to be close enough for most of us for most purposes,
including harmony.
No, the other links suggest that as E12 became common, one learned how
to suppress the 7th partial as to avoid the beats it produces. (Berlioz
letter on first link.)
http://www.steinwaypianos.com/artists/immortals
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/badnote.html
Those links appear to be talking about the timbre of an instrument and
how that can affect harmonies played upon that instrument.
If the 7th partial of the fundamental tones that the instrument is
capable of producing happens to be beyond a certain threshold of
audibility, then the 7th partial becomes noticeable and annoying.
Those links say nothing about the suitability of 12tet min 7th intervals
themselves for harmony.
The harmonic stability is just the beats of close pitches among the
partials of the notes played. So if some beats come out strongly, one
can weaken them by either move the frequencies or weaking one of the
partials involved.
Berlioz is noting that the m7 sounds badly but the problem has been
fixed on those grands.
Makers of hi-gain electric guitar amps use vacuum tubes rather than
transistors because guitar players find even-numbered harmonics more
musically pleasing than odd-numbered harmonics, and tubes happen
emphasize the even-numbered harmonics when overdriven.
But that's a different topic, just like your diversion into piano string
timbre is a different topic.
IMO
Post by Hans Aberg
The other link says that one can do this by
actually strike the string at 1/7 (or a multiple thereof) of the string
length. This is simple enough to implement in a piano. I haven't had to
time to check if this is what they do, but a quick look suggest this is
what is done.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
You might try this on your guitar. The recipe is that if one strikes the
strings at about 1/7 (or a multiple like 2/7) of its length, the 7th
partial gets suppressed.
What do you mean by "suppressed"?
When I play a 1/7 harmonic what I get is the sound of the 7th partial of
the fundamental of the open string.
It's not suppressed in any way that I can see.
The string has capacity of vibrating in all partials, with some
inharmonicity when to strike or pluck it. When it vibrates, it will
swing in different nodes. By striking it at a 1/7 (or a multiple) of the
length, you suppress the 7th partial.
Again, by playing a 1/7 harmonic I don't see how I "suppress" it.
To the contrary, I extract its sound out of the sound of the string
vibrating at its total length.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Perhaps guitar string manufacturers use processes that suppress the
audibility of the 7th partial.
Yes, it should be designed so that it becomes natural to pluck it at
this point. It is up to the musician to adjust so that the chords sound
nice.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm guessing that if piano manufacturers like Steinway are concerned
about such things that guitar makers probably are as well.
But, again, that's irrelevant to whether or not the 12tet min 7th is
usable for harmony.
It is relevant, because if the 7th partial is strong, the the E12 m7
will produce string beats, like it or not.
If the 5th partial is too strong it will produce annoying beats with the
12tet maj 3rd too.
If the 3rd partial is too strong it will make beats with the 12tet p5th too.
So what?
So we make instruments where the partials of the fundamental tones are
not too prominent.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try to play the m7, and listen if there is a
difference in beat rates depending on where you strike it.
What beat rates?
If I play a single note that happens to be an harmonic of an open
string, what is that single note supposed to beat against?
Play a chord that involves the m7. Then the ideal would be to strike the
string with the lower not at 1/7 (or a multiple) of its length.
That makes no sense gto me sorry.
You know there are lots of other ways that I could use to listen to pure
intervals and compare them to 12ET intervals, eh?
I've got synths that can do this.
Post by Hans Aberg
Try moving the point where you strike this string up and down, to see if
you hear any difference in the strength of the beats.
If I move the point where I strike the string then I won't be able to
sound out the intended harmonic.
Maybe *you* shouldn't be using guitar for these examples.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It could of
course be that you like the beat rates or have gotten so used to them
that you do not bother. But the Berlioz letter suggests one did not like
them in the mid-19th century.
Of course I've gotten used to beats.
Who hasn't?
Every possible interval in 12tet, except the octave and unisons (if
you're lucky, lol), has beats.
That hasn't stopped me from playing and immensely enjoying the sound of
chords on my guitar.
You might still increase your perception of the difference of the
exercise above. I do not know what you will find, but it seems interesting.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-05 17:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It is the augmented 6th, +6, that approximates the interval 7/4 in E31
and quarter-comma meantone. In the E12, +6 and m7 are the same, but both
are too far off from 7/4 to be usable for harmony (see below).
Yes it's true that in 12tet the aug 6th interval and the min 7th
interval are enharmonic equivalents.
No it is not true that this interval is unsuitable for harmony, as at
least 2 centuries of music will attest too.
Only that it is the 5-limit, not the 7-limit.
Whatever.
My only reason for entering this thread, which I have not completely
read, was to take issue with your comments that somehow the 12tet min
7th was unsuitable for harmony.
That is what Berlioz said, and the view seems tied to a strong 7th
partial. I have measured a piano, and though the 7th partial does not
seem specifically suppressed, it is weak among the notes that may
produce harmonic interference.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I can't see how anybody could argue that successfully, based on all the
music that's already out there.
If I've misunderstood your comments then I apologize.
It seems you have misunderstood it.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Maye it's a language thing with English not being your 1st language.
I dunno.
The others here understood, one of whom has English as first language,
so the problem is probably within you.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm sure that in some just intonations the min 7th interval is tuned to 9:5.
But that's irrelevant to what I'm saying, as far as I can see.
The note that sits at a ratio of 9:5 above A110 would be G198.
9 div by 5 = 1.8.
110 X 1.8 198.
Placed in the same octave as G770 we'd have G792 (198 X 4 = 792).
The difference between G792 and G770 is 22hz.
That is so much that even gamelan musicians would find it too intense.
Far away from the CPP ideal of none.
Fine.
But you're the guy making the case for 9:5 as the standard tuning for
"in-tune" min 7ths, not me.
I have made no such case: I noted that in traditional Just intonation,
it may be set to 9/5 or 16/9.
Post by Joey Goldstein
The 12tet min 7th is closer to the pure min 7th than the 9:5 min 7th is.
That's why I still contend that when we hear a 12tet min 7th we hear it
as being representative of 7:4.
You seem to think that the Just (or pure) m7 is 7/4 -it has nothing to
do with it. 7/4 is called the harmonic or septimal 7th. It is not part
of the traditional Just intonation at all.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
That's still farther away from G770 than the 12tet G783.991.
So G770, the pure min 7th interval, the fully harmonic min 7th interval,
is what the 12tet G782.991 is approximating.
In E12, 16/9 is -3.910 c lower than m7, 9/5 is 17.596 c higher, and 7/4
is 31.174 c lower. So the rather strong 3-limit 16/9 will not produce
much beats, 9/5 will produce more, but the partial 5 is typically
weaker, and the 7/4 would produce a lot, unless the 7th partial is
suppressed.
I don't understand your logic or your point above. Sorry.
But I've noticed that you tend to work backwards from my point of view.
You seem to be starting with 12ET as some sort of standard from
in-tune-ness, and then rate other tunings' suitabilities for harmony
based on how far they've deviated from 12ET.
But 12ET is not then standard upon which harmonicity is based.
The interbals in the harmonic overtone series are the basis for harmonicity.
It's the degree by which an interval deviates from the corresponding OTS
interval that will determine its harmonicity.
It is the interaction of the partials that produce beats or "harmonic
instability".

If you play intervals in E12, nearby partials will interact. So that is
what I was checking above. On a E12 m7, a strong 7th partial will
produce a lot of beats, that seems what Berlioz speaking about.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But with large chords, like 9th 11th and 13th chords, especially highly
chromatic music, I'm guessing that they lean towards 12tet min 7ths.
Jack Campin mentioned that somebody had measured a Schoenberg quartet
and found they played something like Pythagorean tuning.
Well then, I think that that performance, if they indeed did purposely
go for Pythagorean tuning, probably sounds even more dissonant than it
would in 12TET, unless the piece is written specifically to employ the
available intervals of Pythagorean tuning.
Most atonal music is called 12-tone music for a reason.
It's very existence, IMO, can only come about in 12tet.
It means that on a variable pitch instrument, the musicians may slip
into whatever intervals the are comfortable with, but E12 is hard to
play because there are no immediate pitch references for it.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Trying to always manage to play 9:5 as the music moves from key to key
would be very hard to pull off.
So they probably adapt as the music goes along. If one pivots adjacent
chords and holds onto to fixed Just intonation ratios, the pitch will
drift - this is called comma pumps. So pitch adjustment on the fly is
necessary.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But I'd also guess that there are musical settings where their ears and
their intuition will pull them towards 7:4, say in drone based music.
If they get close enough, but in CPP music, that would be a +6.
There is no CPP drone music.
I'm not sure what this drone thing you are speaking about, and why one
would want to play the interval 7/4 in such a music.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But the min 7th interval, as it occurs in 12tet tuning, *IS* used
extensively for both melody and *HARMONY*.
Clearly, as the Berlioz letter indicated.
The Berlioz letter that I read seemed to be talking about something else
entirely.
So what do you think it is about?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that this interval is not usable harmonically is just nonsense.
It is the distance of the 7/4 to the E12 m7 that causes problems. So
weakening the 7th partial will help it up. That is what Berlioz said.
Did he?
That wasn't my understanding of what he said.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
And the closest pure interval that is approximated by the 12tet min 7th
is 7:4.
No.
Yes.
Post by Hans Aberg
In E12, 16/9 is -3.910 c lower than m7, 9/5 is 17.596 c higher, and
7/4 is 31.174 c lower.
How do you get 31.174 c smaller than 3.910 c and 17.596 c?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
But the 7/4 is close enough to cause problems if the 7th partial is
string enough.
Timbrally speaking, yes.
Harmonically speaking, no.
You gave figures yourself that it will vibrate at more than 20 Hz in
your example, which is really bad harmony. By contrast, pipe organs may
have mutation stops for the 7th partial, which is used exclusively for
timbre, not harmony. So your ideas are exactly the opposite of what the
usual musical practice.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
We experience the the 12tet min 7th as an acceptable approximation of
the harmonic interval 7:4.
To Berlioz, it was unacceptable.
Berlioz refused to have his music performed on 12ET pianos?
News to me.
Read the letter; he called it an unpleasant harmony.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
If the 7th partial is weakened, the
amplitude of the beats will be weakened, too.
Again, you're talking about the timbre of a piano, not the usability of
the 12ET min 7th interval for harmony.
So what do you think harmony is about? Do you think there will be beats
among sinusoids if they differ by more than a small amount?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
Yes, that is what happens.
By your ideas it should happen.
But in reality it doesn't.
Might be time to change your ideas?
It does not happen because one strikes the strings so that the 7th
partial becomes weakened. But if one does not do that, one gets the
problem that Berlioz is speaking about.
Hans.
G B D F
Look. There's a min 7th between G and F.
It sounds fine.
End of story.
So what is the spectrum of your piano? That is were the story begins, as
for the links given.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Berlioz is noting that the m7 sounds badly but the problem has been
fixed on those grands.
Makers of hi-gain electric guitar amps use vacuum tubes rather than
transistors because guitar players find even-numbered harmonics more
musically pleasing than odd-numbered harmonics, and tubes happen
emphasize the even-numbered harmonics when overdriven.
That would help up the E12 m7.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But that's a different topic, just like your diversion into piano string
timbre is a different topic.
IMO
It seems you have misunderstood what causes harmony instability. What do
you think is producing it?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
You might try this on your guitar. The recipe is that if one strikes the
strings at about 1/7 (or a multiple like 2/7) of its length, the 7th
partial gets suppressed.
What do you mean by "suppressed"?
When I play a 1/7 harmonic what I get is the sound of the 7th partial of
the fundamental of the open string.
It's not suppressed in any way that I can see.
The string has capacity of vibrating in all partials, with some
inharmonicity when to strike or pluck it. When it vibrates, it will
swing in different nodes. By striking it at a 1/7 (or a multiple) of the
length, you suppress the 7th partial.
Again, by playing a 1/7 harmonic I don't see how I "suppress" it.
To the contrary, I extract its sound out of the sound of the string
vibrating at its total length.
If the string vibrates in the 7th partial, then it would have nodes at
multiples of 1/7 of the string length. By plucking it, one feeds energy
into those points so that it is harder to vibrate.

But the 7th partial may not be strong enough on a guitar. and the it
would not matter.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm guessing that if piano manufacturers like Steinway are concerned
about such things that guitar makers probably are as well.
But, again, that's irrelevant to whether or not the 12tet min 7th is
usable for harmony.
It is relevant, because if the 7th partial is strong, the the E12 m7
will produce string beats, like it or not.
If the 5th partial is too strong it will produce annoying beats with the
12tet maj 3rd too.
If the 3rd partial is too strong it will make beats with the 12tet p5th too.
So what?
The harmonic stability depends on the beat rates, too, and it is smaller
in those cases.
Post by Joey Goldstein
So we make instruments where the partials of the fundamental tones are
not too prominent.
One wants the partial strong as to produce a rich timbre, but not those
that interact poorly in the tuning.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try to play the m7, and listen if there is a
difference in beat rates depending on where you strike it.
What beat rates?
If I play a single note that happens to be an harmonic of an open
string, what is that single note supposed to beat against?
Play a chord that involves the m7. Then the ideal would be to strike the
string with the lower not at 1/7 (or a multiple) of its length.
That makes no sense gto me sorry.
You know there are lots of other ways that I could use to listen to pure
intervals and compare them to 12ET intervals, eh?
I've got synths that can do this.
You can't pluck a synth at different string lengths.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try moving the point where you strike this string up and down, to see if
you hear any difference in the strength of the beats.
If I move the point where I strike the string then I won't be able to
sound out the intended harmonic.
Maybe *you* shouldn't be using guitar for these examples.
Oh my gosh: this is the point: some points are optimal for good harmony.
For those, what are the length proportions?
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-05 22:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It is the augmented 6th, +6, that approximates the interval 7/4 in E31
and quarter-comma meantone. In the E12, +6 and m7 are the same, but both
are too far off from 7/4 to be usable for harmony (see below).
Yes it's true that in 12tet the aug 6th interval and the min 7th
interval are enharmonic equivalents.
No it is not true that this interval is unsuitable for harmony, as at
least 2 centuries of music will attest too.
Only that it is the 5-limit, not the 7-limit.
Whatever.
My only reason for entering this thread, which I have not completely
read, was to take issue with your comments that somehow the 12tet min
7th was unsuitable for harmony.
That is what Berlioz said,
That's not what he said in the link you provided.
Do you have some other source you can cite where he says something like
that?
Post by Hans Aberg
and the view seems tied to a strong 7th
partial.
His views of the role of the 7th partial's audibility within the timbre
of a piano has nothing to do with the suitability of the 7th partial of
the overtone series itself for harmony in general or fopr the
suitability of the min 7th intervals that exist within 12tet for
harmonic purposes.
Post by Hans Aberg
I have measured a piano, and though the 7th partial does not
seem specifically suppressed, it is weak among the notes that may
produce harmonic interference.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I can't see how anybody could argue that successfully, based on all the
music that's already out there.
If I've misunderstood your comments then I apologize.
It seems you have misunderstood it.
I don't think so.
I think that you are confusing the ineeraction between two separate
phenomena.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Maye it's a language thing with English not being your 1st language.
I dunno.
The others here understood, one of whom has English as first language,
so the problem is probably within you.
Have they now?
Who else here thinks that the 12tet min 7th interval is "unsuitable for
harmony"?
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm sure that in some just intonations the min 7th interval is tuned to 9:5.
But that's irrelevant to what I'm saying, as far as I can see.
The note that sits at a ratio of 9:5 above A110 would be G198.
9 div by 5 = 1.8.
110 X 1.8 198.
Placed in the same octave as G770 we'd have G792 (198 X 4 = 792).
The difference between G792 and G770 is 22hz.
That is so much that even gamelan musicians would find it too intense.
Far away from the CPP ideal of none.
Fine.
But you're the guy making the case for 9:5 as the standard tuning for
"in-tune" min 7ths, not me.
I have made no such case: I noted that in traditional Just intonation,
it may be set to 9/5 or 16/9.
How can you deny that you've said something and then follow it with the
same thing that you said, all within the same sentence?
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The 12tet min 7th is closer to the pure min 7th than the 9:5 min 7th is.
That's why I still contend that when we hear a 12tet min 7th we hear it
as being representative of 7:4.
You seem to think that the Just (or pure) m7 is 7/4
You yourself have said that there are 2 different commonly used ratios
used to tune the min 7th interval within just intonations.
Well, just intonations are based on the simplest possible frequency
ratios as being the basis for in-tune-ness and for harmonicity.
7:4 is even *simpler* than 9:5 or 16:9.
And although 7:4 may not be used in any popular just intonations (for
whatever reasons) it *is* a just min 7th.
And IMO 7:4 is the just min 7th that "chords of the seventh" in Western
harmony are based on, whether anyone has ever tuned their min 7ths
exactly to this exact ratio or not.
Post by Hans Aberg
-it has nothing to
do with it. 7/4 is called the harmonic or septimal 7th. It is not part
of the traditional Just intonation at all.
7:4 is the simplest interval within the harmonic overtone series that
approximates the min 7th intervals that arise within *any*
diatonic-scale-based music.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
That's still farther away from G770 than the 12tet G783.991.
So G770, the pure min 7th interval, the fully harmonic min 7th interval,
is what the 12tet G782.991 is approximating.
In E12, 16/9 is -3.910 c lower than m7, 9/5 is 17.596 c higher, and 7/4
is 31.174 c lower. So the rather strong 3-limit 16/9 will not produce
much beats, 9/5 will produce more, but the partial 5 is typically
weaker, and the 7/4 would produce a lot, unless the 7th partial is
suppressed.
I don't understand your logic or your point above. Sorry.
But I've noticed that you tend to work backwards from my point of view.
You seem to be starting with 12ET as some sort of standard from
in-tune-ness, and then rate other tunings' suitabilities for harmony
based on how far they've deviated from 12ET.
But 12ET is not then standard upon which harmonicity is based.
The interbals in the harmonic overtone series are the basis for harmonicity.
It's the degree by which an interval deviates from the corresponding OTS
interval that will determine its harmonicity.
It is the interaction of the partials that produce beats or "harmonic
instability".
It is the interaction of the fundamentals of the tones comprising a
chord that give rise to the chord's harmonic stability or instability.
The overtones of the tones comprising the chord can only get in the way
of harmonic stability.
Post by Hans Aberg
If you play intervals in E12, nearby partials will interact.
Of course.
And *that's* what Berlioz *was* talking about.
Post by Hans Aberg
So that is
what I was checking above. On a E12 m7, a strong 7th partial will
produce a lot of beats, that seems what Berlioz speaking about.
On any interval in any tuning, a strong 7th partial that is audible
within the timbre of the instrument, will produce beats.
For many intervals a strongly audible 5th partial or 3rd partial will
also cause beats.
So what?

What has any of this got to do with the suitability of 12tet min 7ths
for inclusion within chords?
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But with large chords, like 9th 11th and 13th chords, especially highly
chromatic music, I'm guessing that they lean towards 12tet min 7ths.
Jack Campin mentioned that somebody had measured a Schoenberg quartet
and found they played something like Pythagorean tuning.
Well then, I think that that performance, if they indeed did purposely
go for Pythagorean tuning, probably sounds even more dissonant than it
would in 12TET, unless the piece is written specifically to employ the
available intervals of Pythagorean tuning.
Most atonal music is called 12-tone music for a reason.
It's very existence, IMO, can only come about in 12tet.
It means that on a variable pitch instrument, the musicians may slip
into whatever intervals the are comfortable with, but E12 is hard to
play because there are no immediate pitch references for it.
Right.
What I'm saying is that *good* musicians playing a 12-tone piece would
be wise to 'slip' into 12tet.
Just because it's hard doesn't mean it isn't done.
But this tangent is irrelevant anyway.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Trying to always manage to play 9:5 as the music moves from key to key
would be very hard to pull off.
So they probably adapt as the music goes along. If one pivots adjacent
chords and holds onto to fixed Just intonation ratios, the pitch will
drift - this is called comma pumps. So pitch adjustment on the fly is
necessary.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But I'd also guess that there are musical settings where their ears and
their intuition will pull them towards 7:4, say in drone based music.
If they get close enough, but in CPP music, that would be a +6.
There is no CPP drone music.
I'm not sure what this drone thing you are speaking about,
Really?
Ever hear any classical Indian music?
Post by Hans Aberg
and why one
would want to play the interval 7/4 in such a music.
Because it's beautiful and harmonious is the main reason.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But the min 7th interval, as it occurs in 12tet tuning, *IS* used
extensively for both melody and *HARMONY*.
Clearly, as the Berlioz letter indicated.
The Berlioz letter that I read seemed to be talking about something else
entirely.
So what do you think it is about?
I've already told you that, about 5 times now.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that this interval is not usable harmonically is just nonsense.
It is the distance of the 7/4 to the E12 m7 that causes problems. So
weakening the 7th partial will help it up. That is what Berlioz said.
Did he?
That wasn't my understanding of what he said.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
And the closest pure interval that is approximated by the 12tet min 7th
is 7:4.
No.
Yes.
Post by Hans Aberg
In E12, 16/9 is -3.910 c lower than m7, 9/5 is 17.596 c higher, and
7/4 is 31.174 c lower.
How do you get 31.174 c smaller than 3.910 c and 17.596 c?
Above I wrote:

------
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
In 12tet, G is tuned to 783.991.
The 12tet, F#/Gb is 739.989.

770 - 739.989 = 30.011hz.
That's the difference between the frequency of the 7th partial and the
frequency of the 12tet maj 6th/dim 7th.
783.991 - 770 = 13.989hz.
That's the difference between the freq of the 7th partial and the freq
of the 12tet min 7th.
So, the 12tet min 7th is more than twice as close to the pure min 7th as
the 12tet maj 6th.

The pure min 7th *is* the harmonic 7th.
Saying that it is not suitable for harmony flies in the face of what
"being in harmony" actually means.
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
But somehow we humans still use the sound of the 12tet min 7th as being
harmonically representative of the pure min 7th.
I.e. It appears to be close enough for most of us for most purposes,
including harmony.
-----
-----
The note that sits at a ratio of 9:5 above A110 would be G198.
9 div by 5 = 1.8.
110 X 1.8 198.
Placed in the same octave as G770 we'd have G792 (198 X 4 = 792).
The difference between G792 and G770 is 22hz.
That's still farther away from G770 than the 12tet G783.991.
So G770, the pure min 7th interval, the fully harmonic min 7th interval,
is what the 12tet G782.991 is approximating.
Just as the 12tet G is a compromise, so is the just G at 9:5.
------

Now I don't know how you've taken your measurements in cents.
But my calculations require no measurement at all.
It's all just basic arithmetic.
Of all the possible pure min 7th interval frequency ratios mentioned
thus far by myself in this thread, the one that is the closest to the
12tet min 7th is 7:4.

If we also examine 16:9 we find that the G above A440 using that ratio
will be tuned to G781.88hz.
[16 div 9 = 1.777
110 X 1.777 X 4 = 781.88]
The difference between the pure 16:9 based G781.88 and the even purer
G770 is 11.88hz.
So yes, 16:9 is an even closer approximation of the 7:4 purest of the
pure min 7th intervals.
The difference between the 12tet G782.991 and the 16:9-based G781.88 is
a mere 1.111hz.
But all this means is that the 12tet min 7th is capable of *standing in
successfully* for any one of these possible pure min 7ths.
The 12tet min 7th is decidedly sour, but it works fine for harmony or
for melody.

And you've not yet once answered me about how it can possibly be that
all this music using 7th chords, 9th chords, 11th chords and 13th chords
happen to exist in the world.
Surely if the 12tet min 7th was unsuitable for harmony, then all of
these chords could not exist.
No?
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
But the 7/4 is close enough to cause problems if the 7th partial is
string enough.
Timbrally speaking, yes.
Harmonically speaking, no.
You gave figures yourself that it will vibrate at more than 20 Hz in
your example, which is really bad harmony.
Less than 20hz.
The figure I gave was 13.989hz.
Again, that's the difference in the vibrational frequencies between
G782.991 (the way G is tuned in 12TET) and G770 (a pure 7/4 ratio above
440).
Post by Hans Aberg
By contrast, pipe organs may
have mutation stops for the 7th partial, which is used exclusively for
timbre, not harmony. So your ideas are exactly the opposite of what the
usual musical practice.
It doesn't seem to me that you're actually following my ideas.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
We experience the the 12tet min 7th as an acceptable approximation of
the harmonic interval 7:4.
To Berlioz, it was unacceptable.
Berlioz refused to have his music performed on 12ET pianos?
News to me.
Read the letter; he called it an unpleasant harmony.
I've read the letter.
It doesn't mean the same thing to me that it means to you.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
If the 7th partial is weakened, the
amplitude of the beats will be weakened, too.
Again, you're talking about the timbre of a piano, not the usability of
the 12ET min 7th interval for harmony.
So what do you think harmony is about?
I think that harmony arises when intervals are sounded that approximate
the proportions of the intervals that are found within the harmonic
overtone series.
Post by Hans Aberg
Do you think there will be beats
among sinusoids if they differ by more than a small amount?
Of course.
But I do know that the presence of beats alone does not somehow destroy
the phenomenon of harmony.
Otherwise, harmony would be intolerable on 12tet tuned instruments, and
clearly that is not the case.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
Yes, that is what happens.
By your ideas it should happen.
But in reality it doesn't.
Might be time to change your ideas?
It does not happen because one strikes the strings so that the 7th
partial becomes weakened. But if one does not do that, one gets the
problem that Berlioz is speaking about.
Hans.
G B D F
Look. There's a min 7th between G and F.
It sounds fine.
End of story.
So what is the spectrum of your piano?
Hans, let's say it's just a regular, commercially available piano or
keyboard.
Sheesh.
Post by Hans Aberg
That is were the story begins, as
for the links given.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Berlioz is noting that the m7 sounds badly but the problem has been
fixed on those grands.
Makers of hi-gain electric guitar amps use vacuum tubes rather than
transistors because guitar players find even-numbered harmonics more
musically pleasing than odd-numbered harmonics, and tubes happen
emphasize the even-numbered harmonics when overdriven.
That would help up the E12 m7.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But that's a different topic, just like your diversion into piano string
timbre is a different topic.
IMO
It seems you have misunderstood what causes harmony instability.
I feel the same way about you.
Post by Hans Aberg
What do
you think is producing it?
Lack of conformity to the proportions of the intervals that exist within
the harmonic overtone series.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
You might try this on your guitar. The recipe is that if one strikes the
strings at about 1/7 (or a multiple like 2/7) of its length, the 7th
partial gets suppressed.
What do you mean by "suppressed"?
When I play a 1/7 harmonic what I get is the sound of the 7th partial of
the fundamental of the open string.
It's not suppressed in any way that I can see.
The string has capacity of vibrating in all partials, with some
inharmonicity when to strike or pluck it. When it vibrates, it will
swing in different nodes. By striking it at a 1/7 (or a multiple) of the
length, you suppress the 7th partial.
Again, by playing a 1/7 harmonic I don't see how I "suppress" it.
To the contrary, I extract its sound out of the sound of the string
vibrating at its total length.
If the string vibrates in the 7th partial, then it would have nodes at
multiples of 1/7 of the string length. By plucking it, one feeds energy
into those points so that it is harder to vibrate.
Is that what you're calling "suppression" of the partial?
That's what I call accenting the partial.
Post by Hans Aberg
But the 7th partial may not be strong enough on a guitar. and the it
would not matter.
The 7th partial is easily heard on the low E and A strings.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm guessing that if piano manufacturers like Steinway are concerned
about such things that guitar makers probably are as well.
But, again, that's irrelevant to whether or not the 12tet min 7th is
usable for harmony.
It is relevant, because if the 7th partial is strong, the the E12 m7
will produce string beats, like it or not.
If the 5th partial is too strong it will produce annoying beats with the
12tet maj 3rd too.
If the 3rd partial is too strong it will make beats with the 12tet p5th too.
So what?
The harmonic stability depends on the beat rates, too, and it is smaller
in those cases.
Post by Joey Goldstein
So we make instruments where the partials of the fundamental tones are
not too prominent.
One wants the partial strong as to produce a rich timbre, but not those
that interact poorly in the tuning.
Right.
So what?
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try to play the m7, and listen if there is a
difference in beat rates depending on where you strike it.
What beat rates?
If I play a single note that happens to be an harmonic of an open
string, what is that single note supposed to beat against?
Play a chord that involves the m7. Then the ideal would be to strike the
string with the lower not at 1/7 (or a multiple) of its length.
That makes no sense gto me sorry.
You know there are lots of other ways that I could use to listen to pure
intervals and compare them to 12ET intervals, eh?
I've got synths that can do this.
You can't pluck a synth at different string lengths.
Oiy.
I've got synths can play in any temperament.
I've got synths that can dynamically adjust temperament in real time too.
So I don't need to use a guitar in order to experience just intervals.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try moving the point where you strike this string up and down, to see if
you hear any difference in the strength of the beats.
If I move the point where I strike the string then I won't be able to
sound out the intended harmonic.
Maybe *you* shouldn't be using guitar for these examples.
Oh my gosh: this is the point: some points are optimal for good harmony.
For those, what are the length proportions?
I can't play harmony on a single string. lol
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-05 22:45:13 UTC
Permalink
At any rate...
You guys just go ahead and talk about whatever it was you were talking
about before I stuck my nose in here.

Sorry for the interruption.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-05 23:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
At any rate...
You guys just go ahead and talk about whatever it was you were talking
about before I stuck my nose in here.
Sorry for the interruption.
Don't give up so easily. :-)
LJS
2011-01-06 02:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
At any rate...
You guys just go ahead and talk about whatever it was you were talking
about before I stuck my nose in here.
Sorry for the interruption.
Don't give up so easily. :-)
Actually Hans, I think that Joey addressed your post quite accurately
and appropriately. He made a very strong and clear attempt to set you
straight. You seem to be really hearing something very different from
Berlioz's statement than is in what he wrote. Then after having this
clearly pointed out to you, you repost the statemet and it clearly is
talking about the timbre. How hard should Joey, or anyone try to
explain that you are misunderstanding what Hector said?

If you would just think about it, the hammers are positioned so that
each hammer hits each string on the 7th partial. Thus the 7th partial
is reduced in every string! If you play the min7 in a chord on the
piano, every string would have the reduced 7th partial and every
string would have this slightly more pure sound with less of this
ambiguous partial present in that note's timbre. It then follows that
when playing the m7th in a musical context, the tempered m7th in the
actual music will not have as much clash with the subliminal m7th
contained in the overtone of the root of a V7 chord. In addition, the
absence of that partial (as subtle as it might be to some!) would make
it easier for the human ear to hear this purified timbre in the
context of the music as the m7th and in conjunction with the purified
timbre of the tempered diminished 4th or augmented 5th associated with
it to be interpreted by the ear in the proper musical context that one
hears the actual musical harmony.

IF he were talking about the actual playing of the musically pure
m7th in the OTS, he would more likely be referring to something in the
technique of playing a grand piano with 30 or 70 keys required to
navigate in each octave in order to have this tone there when he
needed it.

How could he possibly be talking about anything else than the timbre
of the tone being better with this interval lessened by the placement
of the hammer. It sounds to me that Berlioz heard this harmonic in the
notes and it was distracting to him. Of course, he did understrand
harmony as used in the tempered scale and he did hear his music in a
musical context and he seems to have heard equal temprament tunings
and how they allowed him to navigate with an extreme musical sense
through the ET scale. It is perfectly natural that such a fine and
real musician would be elated to have this distraction taken out of
his conscious hearing so that he could better hear his music in ET as
he designed it to be.

Joey did not give up easily. He made a very good case and you just
either missed the truth completely or you ignored it because he
pointed out that you misrepresented the Berlioz statement. He is
probably accurate that this is an English second language thing. I can
see no other reasonable explanation for your replies to his post.

LJS
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 08:21:18 UTC
Permalink
On 2011/01/06 03:33, LJS wrote:
[I don't time to respond to your polemic blah-blah.]
Post by LJS
If you would just think about it, the hammers are positioned so that
each hammer hits each string on the 7th partial. Thus the 7th partial
is reduced in every string!
Right, only that you do not strike the string on the 7th partial, but a
point where it should have no energy in order be able to vibrate.
Post by LJS
If you play the min7 in a chord on the
piano, every string would have the reduced 7th partial and every
string would have this slightly more pure sound with less of this
ambiguous partial present in that note's timbre.
Actually only below the middle octave, which are most responsible for
harmony. Higher partials seem to be naturally weak in the higher region.
Post by LJS
It then follows that
when playing the m7th in a musical context, the tempered m7th in the
actual music will not have as much clash with the subliminal m7th
I do not know what you mean by "subliminal". The interval 7/4 is
sufficiently close to the E12 m7 to produce beats if the 7th partial is
strong.
Post by LJS
How could he possibly be talking about anything else than the timbre
of the tone being better with this interval lessened by the placement
of the hammer.
He does not say anything about the placement of the hammer.
Post by LJS
It sounds to me that Berlioz heard this harmonic in the
notes and it was distracting to him.
Well, he says the harmonic makes the m7 interval unpleasant. So it is
not about timbre for a single note.
LJS
2011-01-06 15:41:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
[I don't time to respond to your polemic blah-blah.]
lol Does that mean that "context" is not part of your logic? When was
the last time you spoke about anything other than variations of tuning
systems? You constantly try to make everything about tuning. Most
musicians don't need to know anything about how many divisions of the
octave you can make. They listen. If they are playing with a piano in
ANY tuning, they adjust to that. If they are playing only with non
fixed pitch instruments then they "hear" all the proper pitches to
play. THAT is what makes them a musician. You do know what polemic
means don't you?
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by LJS
If you would just think about it, the hammers are positioned so that
each hammer hits each string on the 7th partial. Thus the 7th partial
is reduced in every string!
Right, only that you do not strike the string on the 7th partial, but a
point where it should have no energy in order be able to vibrate.
Post by LJS
If you play the min7 in a chord on the
piano, every string would have the reduced 7th partial and every
string would have this slightly more pure sound with less of this
ambiguous partial present in that note's timbre.
Actually only below the middle octave, which are most responsible for
harmony. Higher partials seem to be naturally weak in the higher region.
Post by LJS
It then follows that
when playing the m7th in a musical context, the tempered m7th in the
actual music will not have as much clash with the subliminal m7th
I do not know what you mean by "subliminal". The interval 7/4 is
sufficiently close to the E12 m7 to produce beats if the 7th partial is
strong.
And that statement is really not relative to anything that I or
Berlioz said! I don't know. I try to think that it is ESL or just not
understanding English to a high enough degree to understand the
subleties of context. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are just thinking
nonsense.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by LJS
How could he possibly be talking about anything else than the timbre
of the tone being better with this interval lessened by the placement
of the hammer.
He does not say anything about the placement of the hammer.
Are you trying to be funny or something? Do you really think that
every factoid exists in its own little vacumme? Open your ears and
listen to the music!
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by LJS
It sounds to me that Berlioz heard this harmonic in the
notes and it was distracting to him.
Well, he says the harmonic makes the m7 interval unpleasant. So it
not about timbre for a single note.
Like I said. Either you don't understand English or you you don't
understand context or you don't understand music. Your interpretation
is simply not correct. You are working on false assumptions. And here
is another context shift. Single note is different than every single
note. The note, with what ever method was used (other sources has the
hammer as being the reason, to Berlioz, the reason is incidental, I
sincerely hope that you at least understand that much!) With the
overtone lessened, the sound is more pure. He was objecting to the
sound of the PIANO. The overtone of the single tone is not a factor in
the harmony, it is a factor in the timbre.
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 16:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJS
Post by Hans Aberg
[I don't time to respond to your polemic blah-blah.]
lol Does that mean that "context" is not part of your logic? When was
the last time you spoke about anything other than variations of tuning
systems? You constantly try to make everything about tuning. Most
musicians don't need to know anything about how many divisions of the
octave you can make. They listen. If they are playing with a piano in
ANY tuning, they adjust to that. If they are playing only with non
fixed pitch instruments then they "hear" all the proper pitches to
play. THAT is what makes them a musician. You do know what polemic
means don't you?
Musicians do not need to know about music theory, though it may help.
This NG, though, is about music theory. If you are not interested, go to
a NG were musicians not interested in theory hang out.

In view of your personal attacks, I have decided to not respond to the
rest. Try someone else.
LJS
2011-01-07 12:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by LJS
Post by Hans Aberg
[I don't time to respond to your polemic blah-blah.]
lol Does that mean that "context" is not part of your logic? When was
the last time you spoke about anything other than variations of tuning
systems? You constantly try to make everything about tuning. Most
musicians don't need to know anything about how many divisions of the
octave you can make. They listen. If they are playing with a piano in
ANY tuning, they adjust to that. If they are playing only with non
fixed pitch instruments then they "hear" all the proper pitches to
play. THAT is what makes them a musician. You do know what polemic
means don't you?
Musicians do not need to know about music theory, though it may help.
This NG, though, is about music theory. If you are not interested, go to
a NG were musicians not interested in theory hang out.
In view of your personal attacks, I have decided to not respond to the
rest. Try someone else.
Not personal attacks. You just don't understand. That is a fact. What
is the reason? I don't know. It must be the language. Otherwise you
would understand that I am only pointing out yor misunderstanding. It
is hard to work in another language. It just means that you have to
listen and pay attention more.

But back to the theory. All musicians DO understand a lot of theory.
They may not understand it in the academic sense, but they understand
from a listening sense. If they don't, they are not musicians!! that
is part of the definition. One way or another, no matter what the
apparant knowledge is, they hear it. They hear the theory if they are
a competent preformer. If you can't hear the pitch that a tone is
supposed to be played, then you are not a musician. If you need to
divide the octave and use programs and computers to generate the
"correct" tone, one migh be somewhere in the conceptual musician
catagory or they may be a scientist. A preforming musician will hear
the tones. Its that simple.

LJS
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-06 04:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
At any rate...
You guys just go ahead and talk about whatever it was you were talking
about before I stuck my nose in here.
Sorry for the interruption.
Don't give up so easily. :-)
Piss off.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-05 23:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
My only reason for entering this thread, which I have not completely
read, was to take issue with your comments that somehow the 12tet min
7th was unsuitable for harmony.
That is what Berlioz said,
That's not what he said in the link you provided.
Do you have some other source you can cite where he says something like
that?
He said:
...you have discovered the secret of lessening, to an imperceptible
point, that unpleasent harmonic of the minor seventh...

So he even mentions that they lessen an unpleasant harmonic of the m7.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
and the view seems tied to a strong 7th
partial.
His views of the role of the 7th partial's audibility within the timbre
of a piano has nothing to do with the suitability of the 7th partial of
the overtone series itself for harmony in general or fopr the
suitability of the min 7th intervals that exist within 12tet for
harmonic purposes.
It is not the timbre of the piano, but its effects on the m7 he speaks
about.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It seems you have misunderstood it.
I don't think so.
I think that you are confusing the ineeraction between two separate
phenomena.
You do not seem the connection between a note having an overtone
spectrum, and the problem of harmonic instability whem playing more than
one note simultaneously.

Suppose you have two sinusoids (no overtones) in the relation 2:3 with
some offset. Do you you think you will hear beats?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Maye it's a language thing with English not being your 1st language.
I dunno.
The others here understood, one of whom has English as first language,
so the problem is probably within you.
Have they now?
Who else here thinks that the 12tet min 7th interval is "unsuitable for
harmony"?
Look back in the thread. Read before jumping in, or be polite so people
may want to inform you in your ignorance.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Fine.
But you're the guy making the case for 9:5 as the standard tuning for
"in-tune" min 7ths, not me.
I have made no such case: I noted that in traditional Just intonation,
it may be set to 9/5 or 16/9.
How can you deny that you've said something and then follow it with the
same thing that you said, all within the same sentence?
Why don't you look up some dictionaries on Just Intonation, instead of
quibbling about it here?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The 12tet min 7th is closer to the pure min 7th than the 9:5 min 7th is.
That's why I still contend that when we hear a 12tet min 7th we hear it
as being representative of 7:4.
You seem to think that the Just (or pure) m7 is 7/4
You yourself have said that there are 2 different commonly used ratios
used to tune the min 7th interval within just intonations.
Yes, I have found two different sources, decades old, that use the
values 9/5 or 16/9.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Well, just intonations are based on the simplest possible frequency
ratios as being the basis for in-tune-ness and for harmonicity.
7:4 is even *simpler* than 9:5 or 16:9.
Well, you may argue, but that is not what is used traditionally, as it
is closer to the +6 in meantone.
Post by Joey Goldstein
And although 7:4 may not be used in any popular just intonations (for
whatever reasons) it *is* a just min 7th.
That is not the tradition.
Post by Joey Goldstein
And IMO 7:4 is the just min 7th that "chords of the seventh" in Western
harmony are based on, whether anyone has ever tuned their min 7ths
exactly to this exact ratio or not.
That must be the Wild West, then.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It is the interaction of the partials that produce beats or "harmonic
instability".
It is the interaction of the fundamentals of the tones comprising a
chord that give rise to the chord's harmonic stability or instability.
The overtones of the tones comprising the chord can only get in the way
of harmonic stability.
You should try doing some harmony with sinusoids.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
If you play intervals in E12, nearby partials will interact.
Of course.
And *that's* what Berlioz *was* talking about.
So you understand something.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
So that is
what I was checking above. On a E12 m7, a strong 7th partial will
produce a lot of beats, that seems what Berlioz speaking about.
On any interval in any tuning, a strong 7th partial that is audible
within the timbre of the instrument, will produce beats.
Only beats when used in harmony.
Post by Joey Goldstein
For many intervals a strongly audible 5th partial or 3rd partial will
also cause beats.
So what?
Harmony; aren't you interested in that?
Post by Joey Goldstein
What has any of this got to do with the suitability of 12tet min 7ths
for inclusion within chords?
Its roughness.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But with large chords, like 9th 11th and 13th chords, especially highly
chromatic music, I'm guessing that they lean towards 12tet min 7ths.
Jack Campin mentioned that somebody had measured a Schoenberg quartet
and found they played something like Pythagorean tuning.
Well then, I think that that performance, if they indeed did purposely
go for Pythagorean tuning, probably sounds even more dissonant than it
would in 12TET, unless the piece is written specifically to employ the
available intervals of Pythagorean tuning.
Most atonal music is called 12-tone music for a reason.
It's very existence, IMO, can only come about in 12tet.
It means that on a variable pitch instrument, the musicians may slip
into whatever intervals the are comfortable with, but E12 is hard to
play because there are no immediate pitch references for it.
Right.
What I'm saying is that *good* musicians playing a 12-tone piece would
be wise to 'slip' into 12tet.
Just because it's hard doesn't mean it isn't done.
But this tangent is irrelevant anyway.
It is hard for musicians that rarely play E12, like orchestral
musicians, but pop and jazz musicians may be closer to E12.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But I'd also guess that there are musical settings where their ears and
their intuition will pull them towards 7:4, say in drone based music.
If they get close enough, but in CPP music, that would be a +6.
There is no CPP drone music.
I'm not sure what this drone thing you are speaking about,
Really?
Ever hear any classical Indian music?
Post by Hans Aberg
and why one
would want to play the interval 7/4 in such a music.
Because it's beautiful and harmonious is the main reason.
I'm not sure exactly what intervals they play there. The description I
saw was 5-limit.

One can use even the 11-limit, but 7-limit and higher do not fit into
the CPP major/minor model, except for the 7/4 at +6.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The Berlioz letter that I read seemed to be talking about something else
entirely.
So what do you think it is about?
I've already told you that, about 5 times now.
Since I never saw it, you must repeat it. It seemed you did not
understand what he was speaking about.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that this interval is not usable harmonically is just nonsense.
It is the distance of the 7/4 to the E12 m7 that causes problems. So
weakening the 7th partial will help it up. That is what Berlioz said.
Did he?
That wasn't my understanding of what he said.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
And the closest pure interval that is approximated by the 12tet min 7th
is 7:4.
No.
Yes.
Post by Hans Aberg
In E12, 16/9 is -3.910 c lower than m7, 9/5 is 17.596 c higher, and
7/4 is 31.174 c lower.
How do you get 31.174 c smaller than 3.910 c and 17.596 c?
------
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
In 12tet, G is tuned to 783.991.
The 12tet, F#/Gb is 739.989.
770 - 739.989 = 30.011hz.
That's the difference between the frequency of the 7th partial and the
frequency of the 12tet maj 6th/dim 7th.
783.991 - 770 = 13.989hz.
That's the difference between the freq of the 7th partial and the freq
of the 12tet min 7th.
So, the 12tet min 7th is more than twice as close to the pure min 7th as
the 12tet maj 6th.
Why do you mix M6 into the picture? It is too far off to be compared
with 7/4.

And then it is not enough to take an interval ratio and find the nearest
E12 approximation - this is what Berlioz notices.

So this is the fallacy in your reasoning: though 7/4 may be nearest m7
in E12, it is too far off to do good harmony.
Post by Joey Goldstein
The pure min 7th *is* the harmonic 7th.
No, if you by "pure" mean Just intonation.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that it is not suitable for harmony flies in the face of what
"being in harmony" actually means.
Some experiment with incorporating 7/4 - see my reply to John Wood, and
in modern usage it may be called "pure" or "Just" meaning simply
"rational", but that is not the traditional value.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
Yes, that is what Berlioz says it is...
Post by Joey Goldstein
But somehow we humans still use the sound of the 12tet min 7th as being
harmonically representative of the pure min 7th.
I.e. It appears to be close enough for most of us for most purposes,
including harmony.
...unless you somehow weak the piano.
Post by Joey Goldstein
-----
-----
The note that sits at a ratio of 9:5 above A110 would be G198.
9 div by 5 = 1.8.
110 X 1.8 198.
Placed in the same octave as G770 we'd have G792 (198 X 4 = 792).
The difference between G792 and G770 is 22hz.
That's still farther away from G770 than the 12tet G783.991.
So G770, the pure min 7th interval, the fully harmonic min 7th interval,
is what the 12tet G782.991 is approximating.
Just as the 12tet G is a compromise, so is the just G at 9:5.
No, it approximates the Just intonation value 16/9 much better. 7/4 is
very close to +6. The difference is one E31 tonestep, which is what
produces a wolf tone; it would be strange if musicians of that day would
not be able to hear it.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Now I don't know how you've taken your measurements in cents.
I just compute the offset form the nearest E12 tone. E12 m7 is 1000 c,
16/9 is 996.090 c, so there is a 3.910 c difference.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But my calculations require no measurement at all.
It's all just basic arithmetic.
Of all the possible pure min 7th interval frequency ratios mentioned
thus far by myself in this thread, the one that is the closest to the
12tet min 7th is 7:4.
You need to look up Just intonation. John Wood gave the values in his
thread, but any dictionary or Wikipedia would do.
Post by Joey Goldstein
And you've not yet once answered me about how it can possibly be that
all this music using 7th chords, 9th chords, 11th chords and 13th chords
happen to exist in the world.
Surely if the 12tet min 7th was unsuitable for harmony, then all of
these chords could not exist.
No?
Berlioz was speaking about the standards of his day, were one tolerated
much less than today. And one can make those chords more tolerable by
reducing the strength of overtones without the 3- or 5-limit.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
But the 7/4 is close enough to cause problems if the 7th partial is
string enough.
Timbrally speaking, yes.
Harmonically speaking, no.
You gave figures yourself that it will vibrate at more than 20 Hz in
your example, which is really bad harmony.
Less than 20hz.
The figure I gave was 13.989hz.
You used 100 Hz, but harmony takes place higher up, so you get higher
beat rates.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
So what do you think harmony is about?
I think that harmony arises when intervals are sounded that approximate
the proportions of the intervals that are found within the harmonic
overtone series.
Well, that is not enough, because the partials must be present it the
spectrum of the sounding notes. Otherwise, there would be no need to
stretch tune a piano to make the inharmonic artials line up better.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Do you think there will be beats
among sinusoids if they differ by more than a small amount?
Of course.
Well, that is not the case. Try it. If one uses only sinusoids, there is
no need to worry about harmony.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But I do know that the presence of beats alone does not somehow destroy
the phenomenon of harmony.
Otherwise, harmony would be intolerable on 12tet tuned instruments, and
clearly that is not the case.
The interaction between the partials in the spectrum of the sounding
notes causes beats, which one may have views on. But that is it.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
G B D F
Look. There's a min 7th between G and F.
It sounds fine.
End of story.
So what is the spectrum of your piano?
Hans, let's say it's just a regular, commercially available piano or
keyboard.
Sheesh.
So what is the spectrum of that?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
What do you mean by "suppressed"?
When I play a 1/7 harmonic what I get is the sound of the 7th partial of
the fundamental of the open string.
It's not suppressed in any way that I can see.
The string has capacity of vibrating in all partials, with some
inharmonicity when to strike or pluck it. When it vibrates, it will
swing in different nodes. By striking it at a 1/7 (or a multiple) of the
length, you suppress the 7th partial.
Again, by playing a 1/7 harmonic I don't see how I "suppress" it.
To the contrary, I extract its sound out of the sound of the string
vibrating at its total length.
If the string vibrates in the 7th partial, then it would have nodes at
multiples of 1/7 of the string length. By plucking it, one feeds energy
into those points so that it is harder to vibrate.
Is that what you're calling "suppression" of the partial?
That's what I call accenting the partial.
It becomes harder for the 7th partial to vibrate, as it should at a node
(still) at that point. So its amplitude gets weaker.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
But the 7th partial may not be strong enough on a guitar. and the it
would not matter.
The 7th partial is easily heard on the low E and A strings.
On the piano I measured, it was weak. So if you are sure that you hear
it you should be able to experiment with its effect by plucking at
different distances.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
One wants the partial strong as to produce a rich timbre, but not those
that interact poorly in the tuning.
Right.
So what?
Berlioz.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try to play the m7, and listen if there is a
difference in beat rates depending on where you strike it.
What beat rates?
If I play a single note that happens to be an harmonic of an open
string, what is that single note supposed to beat against?
Play a chord that involves the m7. Then the ideal would be to strike the
string with the lower not at 1/7 (or a multiple) of its length.
That makes no sense gto me sorry.
You know there are lots of other ways that I could use to listen to pure
intervals and compare them to 12ET intervals, eh?
I've got synths that can do this.
You can't pluck a synth at different string lengths.
Oiy.
I've got synths can play in any temperament.
I've got synths that can dynamically adjust temperament in real time too.
So I don't need to use a guitar in order to experience just intervals.
But how do you adjust the spectrum?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try moving the point where you strike this string up and down, to see if
you hear any difference in the strength of the beats.
If I move the point where I strike the string then I won't be able to
sound out the intended harmonic.
Maybe *you* shouldn't be using guitar for these examples.
Oh my gosh: this is the point: some points are optimal for good harmony.
For those, what are the length proportions?
I can't play harmony on a single string. lol
Hmm. It is the string/plucking length proportions of the string with the
7th partial you should experiment with while listening to its
interaction with the other strings producing the harmony.
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-06 04:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
My only reason for entering this thread, which I have not completely
read, was to take issue with your comments that somehow the 12tet min
7th was unsuitable for harmony.
That is what Berlioz said,
That's not what he said in the link you provided.
Do you have some other source you can cite where he says something like
that?
...you have discovered the secret of lessening, to an imperceptible
point, that unpleasent harmonic of the minor seventh...
So he even mentions that they lessen an unpleasant harmonic of the m7.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
and the view seems tied to a strong 7th
partial.
His views of the role of the 7th partial's audibility within the timbre
of a piano has nothing to do with the suitability of the 7th partial of
the overtone series itself for harmony in general or fopr the
suitability of the min 7th intervals that exist within 12tet for
harmonic purposes.
It is not the timbre of the piano, but its effects on the m7 he speaks
about.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It seems you have misunderstood it.
I don't think so.
I think that you are confusing the ineeraction between two separate
phenomena.
You do not seem the connection between a note having an overtone
spectrum, and the problem of harmonic instability whem playing more than
one note simultaneously.
Suppose you have two sinusoids (no overtones) in the relation 2:3 with
some offset. Do you you think you will hear beats?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Maye it's a language thing with English not being your 1st language.
I dunno.
The others here understood, one of whom has English as first language,
so the problem is probably within you.
Have they now?
Who else here thinks that the 12tet min 7th interval is "unsuitable for
harmony"?
Look back in the thread. Read before jumping in, or be polite so people
may want to inform you in your ignorance.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Fine.
But you're the guy making the case for 9:5 as the standard tuning for
"in-tune" min 7ths, not me.
I have made no such case: I noted that in traditional Just intonation,
it may be set to 9/5 or 16/9.
How can you deny that you've said something and then follow it with the
same thing that you said, all within the same sentence?
Why don't you look up some dictionaries on Just Intonation, instead of
quibbling about it here?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The 12tet min 7th is closer to the pure min 7th than the 9:5 min 7th is.
That's why I still contend that when we hear a 12tet min 7th we hear it
as being representative of 7:4.
You seem to think that the Just (or pure) m7 is 7/4
You yourself have said that there are 2 different commonly used ratios
used to tune the min 7th interval within just intonations.
Yes, I have found two different sources, decades old, that use the
values 9/5 or 16/9.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Well, just intonations are based on the simplest possible frequency
ratios as being the basis for in-tune-ness and for harmonicity.
7:4 is even *simpler* than 9:5 or 16:9.
Well, you may argue, but that is not what is used traditionally, as it
is closer to the +6 in meantone.
Post by Joey Goldstein
And although 7:4 may not be used in any popular just intonations (for
whatever reasons) it *is* a just min 7th.
That is not the tradition.
Post by Joey Goldstein
And IMO 7:4 is the just min 7th that "chords of the seventh" in Western
harmony are based on, whether anyone has ever tuned their min 7ths
exactly to this exact ratio or not.
That must be the Wild West, then.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It is the interaction of the partials that produce beats or "harmonic
instability".
It is the interaction of the fundamentals of the tones comprising a
chord that give rise to the chord's harmonic stability or instability.
The overtones of the tones comprising the chord can only get in the way
of harmonic stability.
You should try doing some harmony with sinusoids.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
If you play intervals in E12, nearby partials will interact.
Of course.
And *that's* what Berlioz *was* talking about.
So you understand something.
Hans.
I understand pretty much everything that's been said by you in this
conversation with me.
But I don't want to talk to you anymore about it because you're being a
condescending (unwarranted too) dick, acting like you know it all and I
know nothing.
Go to Hell.
I've already said everything I need to say in this "discussion".
Go back and read what I've said again and maybe *you'll* learn something
about harmony.

Your notion that 12tet min 7th intervals are not suitable for harmony is
simply put, bullshit.
Go listen to some music.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
So that is
what I was checking above. On a E12 m7, a strong 7th partial will
produce a lot of beats, that seems what Berlioz speaking about.
On any interval in any tuning, a strong 7th partial that is audible
within the timbre of the instrument, will produce beats.
Only beats when used in harmony.
Post by Joey Goldstein
For many intervals a strongly audible 5th partial or 3rd partial will
also cause beats.
So what?
Harmony; aren't you interested in that?
Post by Joey Goldstein
What has any of this got to do with the suitability of 12tet min 7ths
for inclusion within chords?
Its roughness.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But with large chords, like 9th 11th and 13th chords, especially highly
chromatic music, I'm guessing that they lean towards 12tet min 7ths.
Jack Campin mentioned that somebody had measured a Schoenberg quartet
and found they played something like Pythagorean tuning.
Well then, I think that that performance, if they indeed did purposely
go for Pythagorean tuning, probably sounds even more dissonant than it
would in 12TET, unless the piece is written specifically to employ the
available intervals of Pythagorean tuning.
Most atonal music is called 12-tone music for a reason.
It's very existence, IMO, can only come about in 12tet.
It means that on a variable pitch instrument, the musicians may slip
into whatever intervals the are comfortable with, but E12 is hard to
play because there are no immediate pitch references for it.
Right.
What I'm saying is that *good* musicians playing a 12-tone piece would
be wise to 'slip' into 12tet.
Just because it's hard doesn't mean it isn't done.
But this tangent is irrelevant anyway.
It is hard for musicians that rarely play E12, like orchestral
musicians, but pop and jazz musicians may be closer to E12.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But I'd also guess that there are musical settings where their ears and
their intuition will pull them towards 7:4, say in drone based music.
If they get close enough, but in CPP music, that would be a +6.
There is no CPP drone music.
I'm not sure what this drone thing you are speaking about,
Really?
Ever hear any classical Indian music?
Post by Hans Aberg
and why one
would want to play the interval 7/4 in such a music.
Because it's beautiful and harmonious is the main reason.
I'm not sure exactly what intervals they play there. The description I
saw was 5-limit.
One can use even the 11-limit, but 7-limit and higher do not fit into
the CPP major/minor model, except for the 7/4 at +6.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The Berlioz letter that I read seemed to be talking about something else
entirely.
So what do you think it is about?
I've already told you that, about 5 times now.
Since I never saw it, you must repeat it. It seemed you did not
understand what he was speaking about.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that this interval is not usable harmonically is just nonsense.
It is the distance of the 7/4 to the E12 m7 that causes problems. So
weakening the 7th partial will help it up. That is what Berlioz said.
Did he?
That wasn't my understanding of what he said.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
And the closest pure interval that is approximated by the 12tet min 7th
is 7:4.
No.
Yes.
Post by Hans Aberg
In E12, 16/9 is -3.910 c lower than m7, 9/5 is 17.596 c higher, and
7/4 is 31.174 c lower.
How do you get 31.174 c smaller than 3.910 c and 17.596 c?
------
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
In 12tet, G is tuned to 783.991.
The 12tet, F#/Gb is 739.989.
770 - 739.989 = 30.011hz.
That's the difference between the frequency of the 7th partial and the
frequency of the 12tet maj 6th/dim 7th.
783.991 - 770 = 13.989hz.
That's the difference between the freq of the 7th partial and the freq
of the 12tet min 7th.
So, the 12tet min 7th is more than twice as close to the pure min 7th as
the 12tet maj 6th.
Why do you mix M6 into the picture? It is too far off to be compared
with 7/4.
And then it is not enough to take an interval ratio and find the nearest
E12 approximation - this is what Berlioz notices.
So this is the fallacy in your reasoning: though 7/4 may be nearest m7
in E12, it is too far off to do good harmony.
Post by Joey Goldstein
The pure min 7th *is* the harmonic 7th.
No, if you by "pure" mean Just intonation.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Saying that it is not suitable for harmony flies in the face of what
"being in harmony" actually means.
Some experiment with incorporating 7/4 - see my reply to John Wood, and
in modern usage it may be called "pure" or "Just" meaning simply
"rational", but that is not the traditional value.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's the 12tet min 7th that shouldn't be suitable for harmony because
it's "out-of-tune" with the pure min 7th.
Yes, that is what Berlioz says it is...
Post by Joey Goldstein
But somehow we humans still use the sound of the 12tet min 7th as being
harmonically representative of the pure min 7th.
I.e. It appears to be close enough for most of us for most purposes,
including harmony.
...unless you somehow weak the piano.
Post by Joey Goldstein
-----
-----
The note that sits at a ratio of 9:5 above A110 would be G198.
9 div by 5 = 1.8.
110 X 1.8 198.
Placed in the same octave as G770 we'd have G792 (198 X 4 = 792).
The difference between G792 and G770 is 22hz.
That's still farther away from G770 than the 12tet G783.991.
So G770, the pure min 7th interval, the fully harmonic min 7th interval,
is what the 12tet G782.991 is approximating.
Just as the 12tet G is a compromise, so is the just G at 9:5.
No, it approximates the Just intonation value 16/9 much better. 7/4 is
very close to +6. The difference is one E31 tonestep, which is what
produces a wolf tone; it would be strange if musicians of that day would
not be able to hear it.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Now I don't know how you've taken your measurements in cents.
I just compute the offset form the nearest E12 tone. E12 m7 is 1000 c,
16/9 is 996.090 c, so there is a 3.910 c difference.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But my calculations require no measurement at all.
It's all just basic arithmetic.
Of all the possible pure min 7th interval frequency ratios mentioned
thus far by myself in this thread, the one that is the closest to the
12tet min 7th is 7:4.
You need to look up Just intonation. John Wood gave the values in his
thread, but any dictionary or Wikipedia would do.
Post by Joey Goldstein
And you've not yet once answered me about how it can possibly be that
all this music using 7th chords, 9th chords, 11th chords and 13th chords
happen to exist in the world.
Surely if the 12tet min 7th was unsuitable for harmony, then all of
these chords could not exist.
No?
Berlioz was speaking about the standards of his day, were one tolerated
much less than today. And one can make those chords more tolerable by
reducing the strength of overtones without the 3- or 5-limit.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
But the 7/4 is close enough to cause problems if the 7th partial is
string enough.
Timbrally speaking, yes.
Harmonically speaking, no.
You gave figures yourself that it will vibrate at more than 20 Hz in
your example, which is really bad harmony.
Less than 20hz.
The figure I gave was 13.989hz.
You used 100 Hz, but harmony takes place higher up, so you get higher
beat rates.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
So what do you think harmony is about?
I think that harmony arises when intervals are sounded that approximate
the proportions of the intervals that are found within the harmonic
overtone series.
Well, that is not enough, because the partials must be present it the
spectrum of the sounding notes. Otherwise, there would be no need to
stretch tune a piano to make the inharmonic artials line up better.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Do you think there will be beats
among sinusoids if they differ by more than a small amount?
Of course.
Well, that is not the case. Try it. If one uses only sinusoids, there is
no need to worry about harmony.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But I do know that the presence of beats alone does not somehow destroy
the phenomenon of harmony.
Otherwise, harmony would be intolerable on 12tet tuned instruments, and
clearly that is not the case.
The interaction between the partials in the spectrum of the sounding
notes causes beats, which one may have views on. But that is it.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
G B D F
Look. There's a min 7th between G and F.
It sounds fine.
End of story.
So what is the spectrum of your piano?
Hans, let's say it's just a regular, commercially available piano or
keyboard.
Sheesh.
So what is the spectrum of that?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
What do you mean by "suppressed"?
When I play a 1/7 harmonic what I get is the sound of the 7th partial of
the fundamental of the open string.
It's not suppressed in any way that I can see.
The string has capacity of vibrating in all partials, with some
inharmonicity when to strike or pluck it. When it vibrates, it will
swing in different nodes. By striking it at a 1/7 (or a multiple) of the
length, you suppress the 7th partial.
Again, by playing a 1/7 harmonic I don't see how I "suppress" it.
To the contrary, I extract its sound out of the sound of the string
vibrating at its total length.
If the string vibrates in the 7th partial, then it would have nodes at
multiples of 1/7 of the string length. By plucking it, one feeds energy
into those points so that it is harder to vibrate.
Is that what you're calling "suppression" of the partial?
That's what I call accenting the partial.
It becomes harder for the 7th partial to vibrate, as it should at a node
(still) at that point. So its amplitude gets weaker.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
But the 7th partial may not be strong enough on a guitar. and the it
would not matter.
The 7th partial is easily heard on the low E and A strings.
On the piano I measured, it was weak. So if you are sure that you hear
it you should be able to experiment with its effect by plucking at
different distances.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
One wants the partial strong as to produce a rich timbre, but not those
that interact poorly in the tuning.
Right.
So what?
Berlioz.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try to play the m7, and listen if there is a
difference in beat rates depending on where you strike it.
What beat rates?
If I play a single note that happens to be an harmonic of an open
string, what is that single note supposed to beat against?
Play a chord that involves the m7. Then the ideal would be to strike the
string with the lower not at 1/7 (or a multiple) of its length.
That makes no sense gto me sorry.
You know there are lots of other ways that I could use to listen to pure
intervals and compare them to 12ET intervals, eh?
I've got synths that can do this.
You can't pluck a synth at different string lengths.
Oiy.
I've got synths can play in any temperament.
I've got synths that can dynamically adjust temperament in real time too.
So I don't need to use a guitar in order to experience just intervals.
But how do you adjust the spectrum?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try moving the point where you strike this string up and down, to see if
you hear any difference in the strength of the beats.
If I move the point where I strike the string then I won't be able to
sound out the intended harmonic.
Maybe *you* shouldn't be using guitar for these examples.
Oh my gosh: this is the point: some points are optimal for good harmony.
For those, what are the length proportions?
I can't play harmony on a single string. lol
Hmm. It is the string/plucking length proportions of the string with the
7th partial you should experiment with while listening to its
interaction with the other strings producing the harmony.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 08:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
You should try doing some harmony with sinusoids.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
If you play intervals in E12, nearby partials will interact.
Of course.
And *that's* what Berlioz *was* talking about.
So you understand something.
Hans.
I understand pretty much everything that's been said by you in this
conversation with me.
But I don't want to talk to you anymore about it because you're being a
condescending (unwarranted too) dick, acting like you know it all and I
know nothing.
Go to Hell.
The condensation is pretty much on your part. And when you jump into the
the discussion, and people tries to explain to you in a friendly manner,
you give venom back.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I've already said everything I need to say in this "discussion".
Go back and read what I've said again and maybe *you'll* learn something
about harmony.
Well, what you said is wrong. Try do do some harmony with sinusoids and
see what happens. Or listen to this example:
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/titchdemo/rising.wav
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/TitchDemo030730.htm

When do you hear beats beats?
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-06 17:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
You should try doing some harmony with sinusoids.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
If you play intervals in E12, nearby partials will interact.
Of course.
And *that's* what Berlioz *was* talking about.
So you understand something.
Hans.
I understand pretty much everything that's been said by you in this
conversation with me.
But I don't want to talk to you anymore about it because you're being a
condescending (unwarranted too) dick, acting like you know it all and I
know nothing.
Go to Hell.
The condensation is pretty much on your part. And when you jump into the
the discussion, and people tries to explain to you in a friendly manner,
you give venom back.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I've already said everything I need to say in this "discussion".
Go back and read what I've said again and maybe *you'll* learn something
about harmony.
Well, what you said is wrong. Try do do some harmony with sinusoids and
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/titchdemo/rising.wav
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/TitchDemo030730.htm
When do you hear beats beats?
Just because you don't understand what I'm saying does not make it wrong.
Bye.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 18:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Try do do some harmony with sinusoids and
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/titchdemo/rising.wav
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/TitchDemo030730.htm
When do you hear beats beats?
Just because you don't understand what I'm saying does not make it wrong.
But you seem to think that there can be harmonic instability problems
when there are no partials to interact. It is possible to remap the
partials so that wholly new stable harmonies become possible. One
stretch tunes inharmonic instruments one stretch tunes them so that the
partials line up better in order to improve harmonic stability.
J.B. Wood
2011-01-06 19:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
One
stretch tunes inharmonic instruments one stretch tunes them so that the
partials line up better in order to improve harmonic stability.
Hello, a piano tuner usually doesn't set out to deliberately stretch
tune piano octaves; the stretch is a by-product that occurs (as a result
of inharmonicity) after the correct beating between the partials for a
given interval in the temperament octave (piano mid range) are set by
the tuner and the remaining octaves tuned to the temperament octave. So
the temperament octave, if tuned competently, has notes that closely
agree with 12-TET while notes in the octaves above and below the
temperament octave are increasingly sharp or flat of their ET values,
respectively (up to ~20 cents at the extremes).

Having said that, a piano tuner can be aided by an electronic tuning
device (e.g. TuneLab 97 on a PC) that has "stretch" templates stored for
particular makes and types of pianos. This can provide a time-saving
starting point from which to do the tuning.

I suppose you can call doing all this "stretch tuning" but I think that
puts the cart before the horse. Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 19:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.B. Wood
Post by Hans Aberg
One
stretch tunes inharmonic instruments one stretch tunes them so that the
partials line up better in order to improve harmonic stability.
Hello, a piano tuner usually doesn't set out to deliberately stretch
tune piano octaves; the stretch is a by-product that occurs (as a result
of inharmonicity) after the correct beating between the partials for a
given interval in the temperament octave (piano mid range) are set by
the tuner and the remaining octaves tuned to the temperament octave.
That is if one tunes by ear, but still, the effect is to stretch as to
make intervals better. That is why one should not use chromatic tuner to
tune all the strings of a guitar, too, but start with the A and work
using a traditional method.
Post by J.B. Wood
So
the temperament octave, if tuned competently, has notes that closely
agree with 12-TET while notes in the octaves above and below the
temperament octave are increasingly sharp or flat of their ET values,
respectively (up to ~20 cents at the extremes).
Inharmonicity is smallest in the middle of a piano where most harmony
occurs, too, due to the shape of the strings.
Post by J.B. Wood
Having said that, a piano tuner can be aided by an electronic tuning
device (e.g. TuneLab 97 on a PC) that has "stretch" templates stored for
particular makes and types of pianos. This can provide a time-saving
starting point from which to do the tuning.
Nowadays one uses tuners that first measure the spectrum of the strings,
and computes, according to preference, a tradeoff of the partials. A PDF
recommended a tradeoff between partials 2, 3 and 4. (Verituner is the
top of the line.)
Post by J.B. Wood
I suppose you can call doing all this "stretch tuning" but I think that
puts the cart before the horse.
I can't parse this.
J.B. Wood
2011-01-06 20:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by J.B. Wood
One
I suppose you can call doing all this "stretch tuning" but I think that
puts the cart before the horse.
I can't parse this.
My apologies, Hans. Just as old adage that refers to dealing with
matters in reverse order as a result of illogical reasoning. Sometimes
I forget I'm on an international stage. Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 20:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by J.B. Wood
I suppose you can call doing all this "stretch tuning" but I think that
puts the cart before the horse.
I can't parse this.
My apologies, Hans. Just as old adage that refers to dealing with
matters in reverse order as a result of illogical reasoning. Sometimes I
forget I'm on an international stage. Sincerely,
That I understood, but I did not understood why you thought it was so:
perhaps in your municipality, you do it the other way around.
J.B. Wood
2011-01-07 11:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by J.B. Wood
I suppose you can call doing all this "stretch tuning" but I think that
puts the cart before the horse.
I can't parse this.
My apologies, Hans. Just as old adage that refers to dealing with
matters in reverse order as a result of illogical reasoning. Sometimes I
forget I'm on an international stage. Sincerely,
perhaps in your municipality, you do it the other way around.
Hello, and what I tried to convey was that one says "piano tuners
stretch tune so that..." it sounds as if the tuners are out to
deliberately stretch the octave. As I previously pointed out
"stretching" is not an objective, it is an unavoidable byproduct.
The tuning objective is to have prescribed partials beating at the
correct rates as dictated by ET (or whatever other tuning/temperament
scheme is used). Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Hans Aberg
2011-01-07 11:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.B. Wood
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by J.B. Wood
I suppose you can call doing all this "stretch tuning" but I think that
puts the cart before the horse.
I can't parse this.
My apologies, Hans. Just as old adage that refers to dealing with
matters in reverse order as a result of illogical reasoning. Sometimes I
forget I'm on an international stage. Sincerely,
perhaps in your municipality, you do it the other way around.
Hello, and what I tried to convey was that one says "piano tuners
stretch tune so that..." it sounds as if the tuners are out to
deliberately stretch the octave. As I previously pointed out
"stretching" is not an objective, it is an unavoidable byproduct.
The tuning objective is to have prescribed partials beating at the
correct rates as dictated by ET (or whatever other tuning/temperament
scheme is used).
I am not sure in the past they were even aware of that the octaves
become stretched, as it happens naturally when one tries to listen for
the beats. Monochords may be too inexact to detect it.

However, with modern tuners, like the Verituner, it is the other way
around. One measures the partials, choosing a formula to compute a
suitable stretch. It is not a necessary byproduct at all, since one can
use a chromatic tuner without stretch.

In addition, the octave may be stretched or narrowed for other reasons
than a compensation of inharmonicity (though not on pianos for CPP music).
J.B. Wood
2011-01-07 13:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
I am not sure in the past they were even aware of that the octaves
become stretched, as it happens naturally when one tries to listen for
the beats. Monochords may be too inexact to detect it.
Hello, and that's the point. You don't set out to deliberately stretch.
Post by Hans Aberg
However, with modern tuners, like the Verituner, it is the other way
around. One measures the partials, choosing a formula to compute a
suitable stretch. It is not a necessary byproduct at all, since one can
use a chromatic tuner without stretch.
Even with an electronic tuning aid, achieving prescribed beat rates on a
particular piano is the objective. All a really good piano tuner needs
is an A (440 Hz) or C (261.63 Hz) tuning fork as a pitch reference,
tuning hammer/wrench and felt mutes (unless other repairs or are needed
on the instrument). Stored stretch data from a previous tuning on the
same or similar piano can provide a starting point. But you still have
got to check beat rates as you proceed through the tuning. If you can
do all of that without using the human ear, fine.

By "chromatic tuner" are we talking about something for piano tuning or
some other instrument? The inexpensive ones I've seen are not intended
for piano tuning; they provide reference pitches at the fundamental
frequency but don't measure the beating of partials.
Post by Hans Aberg
In addition, the octave may be stretched or narrowed for other reasons
than a compensation of inharmonicity (though not on pianos for CPP music).
Perhaps, but we got off on this discussion when you said "One
stretch tunes inharmonic instruments..." and I took issue with that as
a general statement and proceeded to use the piano to illustrate my
point that stretch is not the tuning objective. But perhaps I'm
nit-picking on semantics. Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Hans Aberg
2011-01-07 13:54:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.B. Wood
Post by Hans Aberg
However, with modern tuners, like the Verituner, it is the other way
around. One measures the partials, choosing a formula to compute a
suitable stretch. It is not a necessary byproduct at all, since one can
use a chromatic tuner without stretch.
Even with an electronic tuning aid, achieving prescribed beat rates on a
particular piano is the objective. All a really good piano tuner needs
is an A (440 Hz) or C (261.63 Hz) tuning fork as a pitch reference,
tuning hammer/wrench and felt mutes (unless other repairs or are needed
on the instrument).
Note that a pianos will be tuned slightly differently when using those
tuning frequencies, due to the inharmonicity.
Post by J.B. Wood
Stored stretch data from a previous tuning on the
same or similar piano can provide a starting point.
One actually measures the inharmonicity partials on some points, or as
many as you like.
Post by J.B. Wood
But you still have
got to check beat rates as you proceed through the tuning. If you can do
all of that without using the human ear, fine.
And rather than working with beat rates, one choose a formula to compute
the stretch.
Post by J.B. Wood
By "chromatic tuner" are we talking about something for piano tuning or
some other instrument? The inexpensive ones I've seen are not intended
for piano tuning; they provide reference pitches at the fundamental
frequency but don't measure the beating of partials.
Right, they do not provide stretch.
Post by J.B. Wood
Post by Hans Aberg
In addition, the octave may be stretched or narrowed for other reasons
than a compensation of inharmonicity (though not on pianos for CPP music).
Perhaps, but we got off on this discussion when you said "One
stretch tunes inharmonic instruments..." and I took issue with that as a
general statement and proceeded to use the piano to illustrate my point
that stretch is not the tuning objective. But perhaps I'm nit-picking on
semantics.
It is hard to respond to such a comment, because the object of tuning an
instrument is to make it sound good in some sense.

However, here are some papers, and there is one on octave sizes:
http://www.billbremmer.com/articles/
LJS
2011-01-07 14:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by J.B. Wood
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by J.B. Wood
I suppose you can call doing all this "stretch tuning" but I think that
puts the cart before the horse.
I can't parse this.
My apologies, Hans. Just as old adage that refers to dealing with
matters in reverse order as a result of illogical reasoning. Sometimes I
forget I'm on an international stage. Sincerely,
perhaps in your municipality, you do it the other way around.
Hello, and what I tried to convey was that one says "piano tuners
stretch tune so that..." it sounds as if the tuners are out to
deliberately stretch the octave. As I previously pointed out
"stretching" is not an objective, it is an unavoidable byproduct.
The tuning objective is to have prescribed partials beating at the
correct rates as dictated by ET (or whatever other tuning/temperament
scheme is used).
I am not sure in the past they were even aware of that the octaves
become stretched, as it happens naturally when one tries to listen for
the beats. Monochords may be too inexact to detect it.
However, with modern tuners, like the Verituner, it is the other way
around. One measures the partials, choosing a formula to compute a
suitable stretch. It is not a necessary byproduct at all, since one can
use a chromatic tuner without stretch.
In addition, the octave may be stretched or narrowed for other reasons
than a compensation of inharmonicity (though not on pianos for CPP music).
Hans,
This is three well schooled and experienced musicians that you have
problems understanding! Isn't it possible that maybe you are the one
that is missing the various contexts and that you are the one that
needs to listen better?

I don't know. Maybe you have something valid to say in these threads
but it is really difficult to discuss anything with someone that does
not understand the context people are talking about! There are 4 main
contributors to this thread. You misunderstand the other three.
Doesn't this suggest something to you?

LJS
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-06 19:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Just because you don't understand what I'm saying does not make it wrong.
But you seem to think that there can be harmonic instability problems
when there are no partials to interact.
Yes, that's true (assuming that I understand what you're saying).
If I have a chord made with only sine wave tones and if those tones
happen to be at very complex frequency ratios, I'd expect the resulting
chord to be quite un-harmonious.
Post by Hans Aberg
It is possible to remap the
partials so that wholly new stable harmonies become possible.
Sure.
But that's irrelevant.
Post by Hans Aberg
One
stretch tunes inharmonic instruments one stretch tunes them so that the
partials line up better in order to improve harmonic stability.
Again, totally irrelevant to what I'm trying to talk to you about.

Hans...
My only issue with you is that you keep making statements to the effect
that you don't believe that 12tet min 7th intervals are suitable for
"harmony".
At least that's what your comments have made it look like your position
is to me. Again, maybe it's a language problem. I don't know.

So, is that really your position or have I misunderstood you?

If that is your position then you're clearly insane. lol

If that's not your position and I've misunderstood you, then let's move
on, because I don't really care anyway.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 20:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Just because you don't understand what I'm saying does not make it wrong.
But you seem to think that there can be harmonic instability problems
when there are no partials to interact.
Yes, that's true (assuming that I understand what you're saying).
If I have a chord made with only sine wave tones and if those tones
happen to be at very complex frequency ratios, I'd expect the resulting
chord to be quite un-harmonious.
So rather than we discuss it here, I suggest to try it out with your
equipment, but be aware of that distortion may cause partials occurring,
too.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It is possible to remap the
partials so that wholly new stable harmonies become possible.
Sure.
But that's irrelevant.
No. Because it is solely the interaction of the partials that is causing
the harmonic instability. There may be other qualities to harmony, but
not this aspect.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
One
stretch tunes inharmonic instruments one stretch tunes them so that the
partials line up better in order to improve harmonic stability.
Again, totally irrelevant to what I'm trying to talk to you about.
Hans...
My only issue with you is that you keep making statements to the effect
that you don't believe that 12tet min 7th intervals are suitable for
"harmony".
At least that's what your comments have made it look like your position
is to me. Again, maybe it's a language problem. I don't know.
The Berlioz letter, then, as he says that E12 m7 is unpleasant before
the piano maker fixed it. So he thought it was less worthy, or how you
would put it before that.

Nowadays, we do not care, and there might be number of reasons. One may
be that the partial 7 in the interval 7/4 is weak, because that would
surely help it up. One way to make it weak is to pluck or strike the
string at a certain point of the string: the reference I gave said a
multiple of 1/7 of the string length of the string producing unwanted
partial.

Could it be clearer, or is your native language Chinese?
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-06 20:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Just because you don't understand what I'm saying does not make it wrong.
But you seem to think that there can be harmonic instability problems
when there are no partials to interact.
Yes, that's true (assuming that I understand what you're saying).
If I have a chord made with only sine wave tones and if those tones
happen to be at very complex frequency ratios, I'd expect the resulting
chord to be quite un-harmonious.
So rather than we discuss it here, I suggest to try it out with your
equipment, but be aware of that distortion may cause partials occurring,
too.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
It is possible to remap the
partials so that wholly new stable harmonies become possible.
Sure.
But that's irrelevant.
No. Because it is solely the interaction of the partials that is causing
the harmonic instability. There may be other qualities to harmony, but
not this aspect.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
One
stretch tunes inharmonic instruments one stretch tunes them so that the
partials line up better in order to improve harmonic stability.
Again, totally irrelevant to what I'm trying to talk to you about.
Hans...
My only issue with you is that you keep making statements to the effect
that you don't believe that 12tet min 7th intervals are suitable for
"harmony".
At least that's what your comments have made it look like your position
is to me. Again, maybe it's a language problem. I don't know.
The Berlioz letter, then, as he says that E12 m7 is unpleasant before
the piano maker fixed it.
My take on what he said is that he was talking about the prominence of
the 7th partial, not the min 7th interval itself.
Musicians often refer to 7:4 as "the min 7th within the OTS" when
discussing the OTS.

What he said was:
"you have discovered the secret of lessening, to an imperceptible point,
that unpleasent harmonic of the minor seventh,"
[We can only hope that it wasn't Berlioz himself who mis-spelled
"unpleasant".

It's clear that he's not talking about some unidentified harmonic that's
audible when playing a min 7th interval.
He's calling the 7th partial itself "that unpleasant harmonic of the
minor seventh".
Guess it's a language problem for you after all.
Post by Hans Aberg
So he thought it was less worthy, or how you
would put it before that.
Nowadays, we do not care, and there might be number of reasons. One may
be that the partial 7 in the interval 7/4 is weak,
Oiy.
Post by Hans Aberg
because that would
surely help it up. One way to make it weak is to pluck or strike the
string at a certain point of the string: the reference I gave said a
multiple of 1/7 of the string length of the string producing unwanted
partial.
One way that Mr. Steinway may have found to minimize the audibility of
the 7th partial on any bass strings that were struck on his pianos might
have been to place the hammers near or on the 1/7 division/node of the
strings.
This has *NOTHING* to specifically do with the min 7th *intervals* that
the piano is capable of producing.
It has everything to do with *EVERY* interval the piano is capable of
producing.
How you could mis-understand all of this is really beyond me.

But let's say you're right, and Mr. Steinway spent his time trying to
figure out how to make min 7th intervals themselves more pleasing on his
pianos.
His pianos are still tuned to 12tet, aren't they?
Even with stretch tuning practises factored in, it's still 12tet.
So, when a musician plays min 7th intervals on these pianos are they
also unsuitable for harmony?
Lol.
Post by Hans Aberg
Could it be clearer, or is your native language Chinese?
You keep digging yourself into an even deeper hole all the while still
attempting to be patronizing towards me.
It's kinda sad to watch.
I was going to tell you to GFY, but I don't care enough about any of
this to warrant that.
This is just sad.

Now answer my question for Chrissake....

Do you actually believe that 12tet min 7th intervals are not suitable
for harmony?
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 21:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
The Berlioz letter, then, as he says that E12 m7 is unpleasant before
the piano maker fixed it.
My take on what he said is that he was talking about the prominence of
the 7th partial, not the min 7th interval itself.
He did not mention the 7th partial, but he mentioned that the m7 was
unpleasant. So in view of the other reference I gave, namely that it
seems to be a well known problem, I thought the harmonic he was
mentioning is the 7th partial.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Musicians often refer to 7:4 as "the min 7th within the OTS" when
discussing the OTS.
Well, that would not have happened in his days. He is very clear to
separate harmonic - the same as partials, with the minor seventh, the
interval.
Post by Joey Goldstein
"you have discovered the secret of lessening, to an imperceptible point,
that unpleasent harmonic of the minor seventh,"
[We can only hope that it wasn't Berlioz himself who mis-spelled
"unpleasant".
It's clear that he's not talking about some unidentified harmonic that's
audible when playing a min 7th interval.
He's calling the 7th partial itself "that unpleasant harmonic of the
minor seventh".
He does not mention the 7th partial explicitly, but that is the
interpretation I made.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Guess it's a language problem for you after all.
It seems to be language problem of yours.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
So he thought it was less worthy, or how you
would put it before that.
Nowadays, we do not care, and there might be number of reasons. One may
be that the partial 7 in the interval 7/4 is weak,
Oiy.
???
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
because that would
surely help it up. One way to make it weak is to pluck or strike the
string at a certain point of the string: the reference I gave said a
multiple of 1/7 of the string length of the string producing unwanted
partial.
One way that Mr. Steinway may have found to minimize the audibility of
the 7th partial on any bass strings that were struck on his pianos might
have been to place the hammers near or on the 1/7 division/node of the
strings.
Yes, that is one way.
Post by Joey Goldstein
This has *NOTHING* to specifically do with the min 7th *intervals* that
the piano is capable of producing.
The interval does not change, since they are somewhat stretched E12, of
course, by assumption, giving the time period of the letter, though that
was not mentioned explicitly.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It has everything to do with *EVERY* interval the piano is capable of
producing.
One wants the intervals played to be in E12, of course.
Post by Joey Goldstein
How you could mis-understand all of this is really beyond me.
I do not know what you mean. You are jumping into this discussion
without bothering to check what is said.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But let's say you're right, and Mr. Steinway spent his time trying to
figure out how to make min 7th intervals themselves more pleasing on his
pianos.
His pianos are still tuned to 12tet, aren't they?
Yes, that is the point.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Even with stretch tuning practises factored in, it's still 12tet.
Essentially, since stretch tuning wants to minimize problems between
interacting partials.
Post by Joey Goldstein
So, when a musician plays min 7th intervals on these pianos are they
also unsuitable for harmony?
Lol.
Berlioz says it depends on the piano, right?
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Could it be clearer, or is your native language Chinese?
You keep digging yourself into an even deeper hole all the while still
attempting to be patronizing towards me.
You are the one keeping this language stuff for you not being able to
understand.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Do you actually believe that 12tet min 7th intervals are not suitable
for harmony?
Berlioz says that it depends on the piano. What do you think they did to
fix it?
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-06 21:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
The Berlioz letter, then, as he says that E12 m7 is unpleasant before
the piano maker fixed it.
My take on what he said is that he was talking about the prominence of
the 7th partial, not the min 7th interval itself.
He did not mention the 7th partial, but he mentioned that the m7 was
unpleasant. So in view of the other reference I gave, namely that it
seems to be a well known problem, I thought the harmonic he was
mentioning is the 7th partial.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Musicians often refer to 7:4 as "the min 7th within the OTS" when
discussing the OTS.
Well, that would not have happened in his days. He is very clear to
separate harmonic - the same as partials, with the minor seventh, the
interval.
Post by Joey Goldstein
"you have discovered the secret of lessening, to an imperceptible point,
that unpleasent harmonic of the minor seventh,"
[We can only hope that it wasn't Berlioz himself who mis-spelled
"unpleasant".
It's clear that he's not talking about some unidentified harmonic that's
audible when playing a min 7th interval.
He's calling the 7th partial itself "that unpleasant harmonic of the
minor seventh".
He does not mention the 7th partial explicitly, but that is the
interpretation I made.
Hans.
"Seventh harmonic" and "seventh partial" are the same things.
*You've* made the wrong interpretation.
Even LJS agrees with me. lol
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Guess it's a language problem for you after all.
It seems to be language problem of yours.
Keep diggin' that hole.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
So he thought it was less worthy, or how you
would put it before that.
Nowadays, we do not care, and there might be number of reasons. One may
be that the partial 7 in the interval 7/4 is weak,
Oiy.
???
A Jewish expression of exasperation towards the person who is doing the
exasperating.
Lol.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
because that would
surely help it up. One way to make it weak is to pluck or strike the
string at a certain point of the string: the reference I gave said a
multiple of 1/7 of the string length of the string producing unwanted
partial.
One way that Mr. Steinway may have found to minimize the audibility of
the 7th partial on any bass strings that were struck on his pianos might
have been to place the hammers near or on the 1/7 division/node of the
strings.
Yes, that is one way.
Post by Joey Goldstein
This has *NOTHING* to specifically do with the min 7th *intervals* that
the piano is capable of producing.
The interval does not change, since they are somewhat stretched E12, of
course, by assumption, giving the time period of the letter, though that
was not mentioned explicitly.
The above paragraph makes no sense.
But please don't bother to explain it, because I don't care.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It has everything to do with *EVERY* interval the piano is capable of
producing.
One wants the intervals played to be in E12, of course.
One wants his intervals to be as harmonious as possible.
*All* of them.
Not just min 7th intervals.
If minimizing the audibility of the 7th harmonic (of the fundamental
tones of an interval) helps to accomplish this, then instrument makers
should attempt to do so, as much as it is practical and/or possible to
do so.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
How you could mis-understand all of this is really beyond me.
I do not know what you mean. You are jumping into this discussion
without bothering to check what is said.
Keep diggin'.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
But let's say you're right, and Mr. Steinway spent his time trying to
figure out how to make min 7th intervals themselves more pleasing on his
pianos.
His pianos are still tuned to 12tet, aren't they?
Yes, that is the point.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Even with stretch tuning practises factored in, it's still 12tet.
Essentially, since stretch tuning wants to minimize problems between
interacting partials.
Post by Joey Goldstein
So, when a musician plays min 7th intervals on these pianos are they
also unsuitable for harmony?
Lol.
Berlioz says it depends on the piano, right?
He never said that explicitly.
All he said is that he likes the way that Steinways sound.
It's you jumping to the wrong conclusions, based on your own prejudices
and tastes I suppose.
You come off here as having a strong animosity towards 12tet and Western
European Art Music.
It's great that you're passionate about exotic alternate tunings and
just intonation and odd meters, but c'mon already.
Your war with the West just won't stand. lol

BTW
Are there any clips of your own music making out there anyplace on the Web.
It'd be interesting to hear some of your stuff after all this time.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Could it be clearer, or is your native language Chinese?
You keep digging yourself into an even deeper hole all the while still
attempting to be patronizing towards me.
You are the one keeping this language stuff for you not being able to
understand.
Hilarious.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Do you actually believe that 12tet min 7th intervals are not suitable
for harmony?
Berlioz says that it depends on the piano.
No, he doesn't.
He's not insane or confused.
Post by Hans Aberg
What do you think they did to
fix it?
I think that Steinway worked to fix something other than what you seem
to think he was trying to fix.
And I've already suggested that placing the hammers on the 7th harmonic
nodes was probably the gist of it.
Why do you ask?
How is this relevant?
Are 12tet min 7th intervals suitable for harmony or not?
A simple yes of no will do.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 21:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
"you have discovered the secret of lessening, to an imperceptible point,
that unpleasent harmonic of the minor seventh,"
[We can only hope that it wasn't Berlioz himself who mis-spelled
"unpleasant".
It's clear that he's not talking about some unidentified harmonic that's
audible when playing a min 7th interval.
He's calling the 7th partial itself "that unpleasant harmonic of the
minor seventh".
He does not mention the 7th partial explicitly, but that is the
interpretation I made.
...
Post by Joey Goldstein
"Seventh harmonic" and "seventh partial" are the same things.
*You've* made the wrong interpretation.
But he does not say the seventh harmonic, but the unpleasant harmonic of
the minor seventh.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Even LJS agrees with me. lol
So you can't be right.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It has everything to do with *EVERY* interval the piano is capable of
producing.
One wants the intervals played to be in E12, of course.
One wants his intervals to be as harmonious as possible.
*All* of them.
Not just min 7th intervals.
If minimizing the audibility of the 7th harmonic (of the fundamental
tones of an interval) helps to accomplish this, then instrument makers
should attempt to do so, as much as it is practical and/or possible to
do so.
So you understand, good.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
So, when a musician plays min 7th intervals on these pianos are they
also unsuitable for harmony?
Lol.
Berlioz says it depends on the piano, right?
He never said that explicitly.
He says that the have discovered the secret of lessening it, so it
implies he must have had experience with worse pianos.
Post by Joey Goldstein
All he said is that he likes the way that Steinways sound.
No, he says the have made this improvement, and that is why he is
writing the letter.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's you jumping to the wrong conclusions, based on your own prejudices
and tastes I suppose.
You come off here as having a strong animosity towards 12tet and Western
European Art Music.
Quite on the contrary: it contains on of the clues why E12 can be made
to work, and why it took so long for it to be introduced.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's great that you're passionate about exotic alternate tunings and
just intonation and odd meters, but c'mon already.
Your war with the West just won't stand. lol
Speaking about jumping to conclusions.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Do you actually believe that 12tet min 7th intervals are not suitable
for harmony?
Berlioz says that it depends on the piano.
No, he doesn't.
Yes he does - see the above.
Post by Joey Goldstein
He's not insane or confused.
Post by Hans Aberg
What do you think they did to
fix it?
I think that Steinway worked to fix something other than what you seem
to think he was trying to fix.
And I've already suggested that placing the hammers on the 7th harmonic
nodes was probably the gist of it.
Why do you ask?
How is this relevant?
So if that is your conclusion, why do you post here? The discussion in
this thread started with Vilen suggesting that the piano was designed to
suppress the 7th partial, Wood was skeptic, and I found a modern
reference indicating that it could be done by striking in that position.

That was the very beginning of it. Now you say that is what you think
too, but that something else than what what I first said.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Are 12tet min 7th intervals suitable for harmony or not?
A simple yes of no will do.
What an idiotic statement.
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-06 22:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
"you have discovered the secret of lessening, to an imperceptible point,
that unpleasent harmonic of the minor seventh,"
[We can only hope that it wasn't Berlioz himself who mis-spelled
"unpleasant".
It's clear that he's not talking about some unidentified harmonic that's
audible when playing a min 7th interval.
He's calling the 7th partial itself "that unpleasant harmonic of the
minor seventh".
He does not mention the 7th partial explicitly, but that is the
interpretation I made.
...
Post by Joey Goldstein
"Seventh harmonic" and "seventh partial" are the same things.
*You've* made the wrong interpretation.
But he does not say the seventh harmonic, but the unpleasant harmonic of
the minor seventh.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Even LJS agrees with me. lol
So you can't be right.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It has everything to do with *EVERY* interval the piano is capable of
producing.
One wants the intervals played to be in E12, of course.
One wants his intervals to be as harmonious as possible.
*All* of them.
Not just min 7th intervals.
If minimizing the audibility of the 7th harmonic (of the fundamental
tones of an interval) helps to accomplish this, then instrument makers
should attempt to do so, as much as it is practical and/or possible to
do so.
So you understand, good.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
So, when a musician plays min 7th intervals on these pianos are they
also unsuitable for harmony?
Lol.
Berlioz says it depends on the piano, right?
He never said that explicitly.
He says that the have discovered the secret of lessening it, so it
implies he must have had experience with worse pianos.
Post by Joey Goldstein
All he said is that he likes the way that Steinways sound.
No, he says the have made this improvement, and that is why he is
writing the letter.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's you jumping to the wrong conclusions, based on your own prejudices
and tastes I suppose.
You come off here as having a strong animosity towards 12tet and Western
European Art Music.
Quite on the contrary: it contains on of the clues why E12 can be made
to work, and why it took so long for it to be introduced.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It's great that you're passionate about exotic alternate tunings and
just intonation and odd meters, but c'mon already.
Your war with the West just won't stand. lol
Speaking about jumping to conclusions.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Do you actually believe that 12tet min 7th intervals are not suitable
for harmony?
Berlioz says that it depends on the piano.
No, he doesn't.
Yes he does - see the above.
Post by Joey Goldstein
He's not insane or confused.
Post by Hans Aberg
What do you think they did to
fix it?
I think that Steinway worked to fix something other than what you seem
to think he was trying to fix.
And I've already suggested that placing the hammers on the 7th harmonic
nodes was probably the gist of it.
Why do you ask?
How is this relevant?
So if that is your conclusion, why do you post here? The discussion in
this thread started with Vilen suggesting that the piano was designed to
suppress the 7th partial, Wood was skeptic, and I found a modern
reference indicating that it could be done by striking in that position.
That was the very beginning of it. Now you say that is what you think
too, but that something else than what what I first said.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Are 12tet min 7th intervals suitable for harmony or not?
A simple yes of no will do.
What an idiotic statement.
Oiy oiy oiy.

I've told you several times now why I entered this thread and how I entered.
All of a sudden *I* understand everything?
You've been accusing me of the opposite of that in post after post.
So now that you know that I know what you're talking about go back and
re-read what I've been trying to tell you again and maybe *you'll*
understand *it* this time.

I won't post it all again.
This was and is a huge waste of my time.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 23:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
What do you think they did to
fix it?
I think that Steinway worked to fix something other than what you seem
to think he was trying to fix.
And I've already suggested that placing the hammers on the 7th harmonic
nodes was probably the gist of it.
Why do you ask?
How is this relevant?
So if that is your conclusion, why do you post here? The discussion in
this thread started with Vilen suggesting that the piano was designed to
suppress the 7th partial, Wood was skeptic, and I found a modern
reference indicating that it could be done by striking in that position.
That was the very beginning of it. Now you say that is what you think
too, but that something else than what what I first said.
...
Post by Joey Goldstein
I've told you several times now why I entered this thread and how I entered.
I looked on the discussions before it, and it does not have any of the
interpretations you are or were making.
Post by Joey Goldstein
All of a sudden *I* understand everything?
I was only hanging out here to get you to understand that. Good you
finally did.
Post by Joey Goldstein
You've been accusing me of the opposite of that in post after post.
So now that you know that I know what you're talking about go back and
re-read what I've been trying to tell you again and maybe *you'll*
understand *it* this time.
You never had anything interesting to say on the subject; I just stayed
on trying to help you becoming informed.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I won't post it all again.
This was and is a huge waste of my time.
Not really, since after a couple of days you were finally able to
understand what was clear to us all others from the beginning. It is
really the time of others you are wasting.
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-07 04:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
What do you think they did to
fix it?
I think that Steinway worked to fix something other than what you seem
to think he was trying to fix.
And I've already suggested that placing the hammers on the 7th harmonic
nodes was probably the gist of it.
Why do you ask?
How is this relevant?
So if that is your conclusion, why do you post here? The discussion in
this thread started with Vilen suggesting that the piano was designed to
suppress the 7th partial, Wood was skeptic, and I found a modern
reference indicating that it could be done by striking in that position.
That was the very beginning of it. Now you say that is what you think
too, but that something else than what what I first said.
...
Post by Joey Goldstein
I've told you several times now why I entered this thread and how I entered.
I looked on the discussions before it, and it does not have any of the
interpretations you are or were making.
Post by Joey Goldstein
All of a sudden *I* understand everything?
I was only hanging out here to get you to understand that. Good you
finally did.
Post by Joey Goldstein
You've been accusing me of the opposite of that in post after post.
So now that you know that I know what you're talking about go back and
re-read what I've been trying to tell you again and maybe *you'll*
understand *it* this time.
You never had anything interesting to say on the subject; I just stayed
on trying to help you becoming informed.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I won't post it all again.
This was and is a huge waste of my time.
Not really, since after a couple of days you were finally able to
understand what was clear to us all others from the beginning. It is
really the time of others you are wasting.
OMG
What total utterly self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, and delusional
bullshit.
I've been saying the same damn stuff since I entered this thread, over
and over and over again in utter disbelief that you just don't get it.
I have learned nothing from you at all that I did not already know,
except how hard it is to reason with you.
I'll remember that in the future, I hope.

So tell us again how unsuitable the 12tet min 7th interval is for harmony.
That *is* your position after all, isn't it?

It must be difficult for you living in a world with all that noise
around you all the time, that noise that that the rest of hear as
beautiful music.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-07 08:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
I won't post it all again.
This was and is a huge waste of my time.
Not really, since after a couple of days you were finally able to
understand what was clear to us all others from the beginning. It is
really the time of others you are wasting.
OMG
What total utterly self-absorbed, self-aggrandizing, and delusional
bullshit.
What an appropriate self-description.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I've been saying the same damn stuff since I entered this thread, over
and over and over again in utter disbelief that you just don't get it.
I have learned nothing from you at all that I did not already know, ...
So then you did not only waste your time, but mine as well.
Post by Joey Goldstein
...except how hard it is to reason with you.
I'll remember that in the future, I hope.
It is probably not only me you have that difficulty with.
Post by Joey Goldstein
So tell us again how unsuitable the 12tet min 7th interval is for harmony.
That *is* your position after all, isn't it?
I merely noted Berlioz observations on it.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It must be difficult for you living in a world with all that noise
around you all the time, that noise that that the rest of hear as
beautiful music.
You have truly strange comments. Also note your "rest of hear".
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-07 17:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
So tell us again how unsuitable the 12tet min 7th interval is for harmony.
That *is* your position after all, isn't it?
I merely noted Berlioz observations on it.
You really and truly believe that Berlioz thought that 12tet min 7th
intervals are unsuitable for harmony?
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It must be difficult for you living in a world with all that noise
around you all the time, that noise that that the rest of hear as
beautiful music.
You have truly strange comments. Also note your "rest of hear".
Sorry. I left out the word "us".
The rest of us hear beautiful harmony played on pianos and guitars all
the time.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-07 18:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
So tell us again how unsuitable the 12tet min 7th interval is for harmony.
That *is* your position after all, isn't it?
I merely noted Berlioz observations on it.
You really and truly believe that Berlioz thought that 12tet min 7th
intervals are unsuitable for harmony?
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh"?

Do truly and sincerely believe that m7 in whatever tuning interval you
prefer is suitable in all types of music, worldwide and historically?

And you were the first in this thread to speak about the "suitability"
of it in the music. Is it something you thin about right now, and want
to bring up for that reason?

And as for the definition, from what I have seen, "pure" and "Just"
intonations are the same (the first is used in Germanic countries); you
can see the values here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation#Diatonic_scale
The value for the Just minor seventh is 16/9, the same as in the Harvard
dictionary, and as on this microtonal encyclopedia
http://tonalsoft.com/enc/m/minor-7th.aspx
On this last link, interval 7/4 is called harmonic seventh (and it also
uses the word "Just" in the more modern, more general sense "rational"),
as here
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It must be difficult for you living in a world with all that noise
around you all the time, that noise that that the rest of hear as
beautiful music.
You have truly strange comments. Also note your "rest of hear".
Sorry. I left out the word "us".
The rest of us hear beautiful harmony played on pianos and guitars all
the time.
What is the strength of the 7th partial on those that you like? Have you
checked the pianos Berlioz didn't like?
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-07 19:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
So tell us again how unsuitable the 12tet min 7th interval is for harmony.
That *is* your position after all, isn't it?
I merely noted Berlioz observations on it.
You really and truly believe that Berlioz thought that 12tet min 7th
intervals are unsuitable for harmony?
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh"?
Not again.
I've already told what I think he meant several times now.
Post by Hans Aberg
Do truly and sincerely believe that m7 in whatever tuning interval you
prefer is suitable in all types of music, worldwide and historically?
No. Just for music that uses harmony and harmonic progression.
Post by Hans Aberg
And you were the first in this thread to speak about the "suitability"
of it in the music. Is it something you thin about right now, and want
to bring up for that reason?
Actually, you appear to be right here.
I lost sight of what you actually said initially, the comment that
coaxed me to enter this thread.
What you actually said is that you think that pure 7:4 min 7th is too
far away from 12tet to be suitable for harmony.
I still disagree with that.
I hear the 7:4 min 7th as being the perfectly suitable for harmony.
It's just that it would be impossible or at least extremely impractical
to utilize this interval within any music that was involved with any
sort of complex progression of chords.
It's quite pretty and peaceful sounding above a drone though, but that's
not really "harmony" per se.

But then you went on with all this Berlioz crap, using his comments to
support a position that you perhaps don't even really hold.
Hilarious.
And you still don't seem to want to answer the question I keep asking
you which would only serve to clarify this whole mess.
Post by Hans Aberg
And as for the definition, from what I have seen, "pure" and "Just"
intonations are the same (the first is used in Germanic countries); you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation#Diatonic_scale
The value for the Just minor seventh is 16/9, the same as in the Harvard
dictionary, and as on this microtonal encyclopedia
http://tonalsoft.com/enc/m/minor-7th.aspx
On this last link, interval 7/4 is called harmonic seventh
And isn't it interesting that, in your opinion, the interval that's
known as the "harmonic" 7th is not suitable for "harmony"?
Lol
I'm still trying to get you to say if you think the 12tet min 7th is
also not suitable for harmony.
Post by Hans Aberg
(and it also
uses the word "Just" in the more modern, more general sense "rational"),
as here
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It must be difficult for you living in a world with all that noise
around you all the time, that noise that that the rest of hear as
beautiful music.
You have truly strange comments. Also note your "rest of hear".
Sorry. I left out the word "us".
The rest of us hear beautiful harmony played on pianos and guitars all
the time.
What is the strength of the 7th partial on those that you like? Have you
checked the pianos Berlioz didn't like?
Irrelevant.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-07 20:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
You really and truly believe that Berlioz thought that 12tet min 7th
intervals are unsuitable for harmony?
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh"?
Not again.
I've already told what I think he meant several times now.
So drop this discussion.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Do truly and sincerely believe that m7 in whatever tuning interval you
prefer is suitable in all types of music, worldwide and historically?
No. Just for music that uses harmony and harmonic progression.
Not even that.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
And you were the first in this thread to speak about the "suitability"
of it in the music. Is it something you thin about right now, and want
to bring up for that reason?
Actually, you appear to be right here.
I lost sight of what you actually said initially, the comment that
coaxed me to enter this thread.
What you actually said is that you think that pure 7:4 min 7th...
It would help if you stick to common terminology and called it the
harmonic minor 7th, as the pure (or just) minor seventh is something
different.
Post by Joey Goldstein
... is too
far away from 12tet to be suitable for harmony.
I still disagree with that.
If the 7th partial is present, it causes via 7/4 beats in the m7 of
meantone and E12 tunings, and it sounds about the same.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I hear the 7:4 min 7th as being the perfectly suitable for harmony.
By contrast, the harmonic m7, that is, interval 7/4, is very close to +6
in meantone and E31, giving it exceptional stability that the Just or
E12 m7 does not have.

If it should resolve in sense of moving to something even more stable,
it must be a major chord.

If it is "suitable" or not depends if adhear to such rules or not.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But then you went on with all this Berlioz crap, using his comments to
support a position that you perhaps don't even really hold.
His comments are interesting in the time period.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Hilarious.
And you still don't seem to want to answer the question I keep asking
you which would only serve to clarify this whole mess.
What is "suitable" in music depends on those that use or listen to it,
and views vary and have varied a lot in the past. So it is strange you
are thinking in those terms.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
And as for the definition, from what I have seen, "pure" and "Just"
intonations are the same (the first is used in Germanic countries); you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation#Diatonic_scale
The value for the Just minor seventh is 16/9, the same as in the Harvard
dictionary, and as on this microtonal encyclopedia
http://tonalsoft.com/enc/m/minor-7th.aspx
On this last link, interval 7/4 is called harmonic seventh
And isn't it interesting that, in your opinion, the interval that's
known as the "harmonic" 7th is not suitable for "harmony"?
7/4 is suitable for harmony, as is 11/8, but they do not fit into the
major/minor scales.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The rest of us hear beautiful harmony played on pianos and guitars all
the time.
What is the strength of the 7th partial on those that you like? Have you
checked the pianos Berlioz didn't like?
Irrelevant.
So you still haven't tried doing harmony with sinusoids. Try it. Listen
for the beats.
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-07 22:24:30 UTC
Permalink
At any rate...

I'm willing to concede that Berlioz may have been referring to *both*
the 7th partial and the min 7th interval in his comments.

I.e.
The 7th partial of a tone, if sufficiently audible, would indeed cause
problems, harmonically speaking, with any 12tet min 7th interval sounded
above it.

Eg.
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
But the 12tet G in that octave is tuned to G783.989.
If the 7th partial of the fundamental of the lower tone of a 12tet min
7th interval is sufficiently audible, it is bound to clash with the
fundamental of the 12tet min 7th above the same tone.

I don't have time right now to calculate how an audible 7th partial
might affect the harmonicity of the other possible intervals in 12tet
tuning, but I'm guessing that the 12tet min 7th interval isn't the only
interval that will have these types of problems.

From my pov the phrase, "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor
seventh", is self-contradictory - unless further qualification is given.
I.e. The term "minor seventh" refers usually to a musical interval
within a diatonic scale system.
It does not usually refer to an harmonic, although, as I said earlier,
many musicians will refer to the 7th partial as being a min 7th.
Likewise the term harmonic is not usually used to refer to an interval.
So the phrase "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh" itself is
actually kind of meaningless.

He'd have to qualify his statement to make it fully intelligible.
Eg.
Which harmonic is he referring to?
Is it an harmonic of the lower tone comprising the interval, or of the
upper tone comprising the interval?
Etc., etc.

But as far as the suitability, in general, of 12tet min 7th intervals
for harmony is concerned, Berlioz has said absolutely nothing.

It so happens that the lower strings of a piano have many more audible
overtones than pretty much any commonly used instrument that I am aware of.
If the volume of these overtones can not be controlled in some way,
especially the volume of the 7th partial, the instrument itself becomes
less useful for music-making in general.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-07 23:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
I'm willing to concede that Berlioz may have been referring to *both*
the 7th partial and the min 7th interval in his comments.
That was my interpretation all along.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I.e.
The 7th partial of a tone, if sufficiently audible, would indeed cause
problems, harmonically speaking, with any 12tet min 7th interval sounded
above it.
Right.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Eg.
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
But the 12tet G in that octave is tuned to G783.989.
If the 7th partial of the fundamental of the lower tone of a 12tet min
7th interval is sufficiently audible, it is bound to clash with the
fundamental of the 12tet min 7th above the same tone.
Yes, and as one goes up in frequency, the beat rates increase, and if
the rates are in a certain region, they may not be appreciated.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I don't have time right now to calculate how an audible 7th partial
might affect the harmonicity of the other possible intervals in 12tet
tuning, but I'm guessing that the 12tet min 7th interval isn't the only
interval that will have these types of problems.
You might try comparing sawtooth wave on your gear which has all
overtones tapering off slowly, with a sine wave which has none. A square
wave has only odd partials, and also a triangular wave but tapering or
more quickly, sounding more like a clarinet.
Post by Joey Goldstein
From my pov the phrase, "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor
seventh", is self-contradictory - unless further qualification is given.
Yes, but if it was a topic of discussion of that day, no more
qualifications would have been needed.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I.e. The term "minor seventh" refers usually to a musical interval
within a diatonic scale system.
So that was my interpretation of the letter.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It does not usually refer to an harmonic, although, as I said earlier,
many musicians will refer to the 7th partial as being a min 7th.
Microtonalists do not seem to use that term, so I suspect it is a modern
one used in pop and jazz.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Likewise the term harmonic is not usually used to refer to an interval.
So the phrase "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh" itself is
actually kind of meaningless.
He'd have to qualify his statement to make it fully intelligible.
Eg.
Which harmonic is he referring to?
Is it an harmonic of the lower tone comprising the interval, or of the
upper tone comprising the interval?
Etc., etc.
So I pointed those things out. But a reasonable explanation, as the
interval 7/4 is close to the m7 in whatever chosen tuning (meantone or
E12 do not make much difference here) is that he speaks about the 7th
partial.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But as far as the suitability, in general, of 12tet min 7th intervals
for harmony is concerned, Berlioz has said absolutely nothing.
The "suitability" varies with the users. But he said he did not like it,
perhaps on other pianos. Perhaps it works better on an orchestra.
Post by Joey Goldstein
It so happens that the lower strings of a piano have many more audible
overtones than pretty much any commonly used instrument that I am aware of.
I measured a piano here, and though the 7th partial did not seem to be
suppressed, it, and the partials above were weak. Grands are different
though, they surely have more partials as to sound brighter, and
Steinway sounds particular bright - that is what I like about them. So
it could be that they worked early on making the sound brighter, and hit
a problem with the 7th partial.

Also listen to the Chopin example here, on a 19th century piano, and a
modern. The former has a darker timbre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano
Post by Joey Goldstein
If the volume of these overtones can not be controlled in some way,
especially the volume of the 7th partial, the instrument itself becomes
less useful for music-making in general.
I think that may be what is going on. You mentioned analog radio tube
amplifiers that encouraged the even partials. That might help lessening
the amplitude of these beats. But other factors may as well be at play,
like we are more used to it nowadays, and if one is playing chord
sequences more quickly, then it will not be noticed. So there may be a
number of factors at play, but this is an interesting one.
LJS
2011-01-07 23:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
At any rate...
I'm willing to concede that Berlioz may have been referring to *both*
the 7th partial and the min 7th interval in his comments.
I.e.
The 7th partial of a tone, if sufficiently audible, would indeed cause
problems, harmonically speaking, with any 12tet min 7th interval sounded
above it.
Eg.
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
But the 12tet G in that octave is tuned to G783.989.
If the 7th partial of the fundamental of the lower tone of a 12tet min
7th interval is sufficiently audible, it is bound to clash with the
fundamental of the 12tet min 7th above the same tone.
Except for the fact that the piano manufacturer has contros on
production and design of the partials in the string and has no control
of the interval of the m7th I woluld fully agree with you. As stated,
with the ambiguity of which he is talking about (I think maybe of the
context changes by Hans had a lot to do with this) I think that you
have a very good answer.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I don't have time right now to calculate how an audible 7th partial
might affect the harmonicity of the other possible intervals in 12tet
tuning, but I'm guessing that the 12tet min 7th interval isn't the only
interval that will have these types of problems.
Thank God! lol
Post by Joey Goldstein
 From my pov the phrase, "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor
seventh", is self-contradictory - unless further qualification is given.
I.e. The term "minor seventh" refers usually to a musical interval
within a diatonic scale system.
It does not usually refer to an harmonic, although, as I said earlier,
many musicians will refer to the 7th partial as being a min 7th.
Likewise the term harmonic is not usually used to refer to an interval.
So the phrase "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh"  itself is
actually kind of meaningless.
He'd have to qualify his statement to make it fully intelligible.
Eg.
Which harmonic is he referring to?
Is it an harmonic of the lower tone comprising the interval, or of the
upper tone comprising the interval?
Etc., etc.
Exactly, except for what I said above.
Post by Joey Goldstein
But as far as the suitability, in general, of 12tet min 7th intervals
for harmony is concerned, Berlioz has said absolutely nothing.
Ah, a voice of reason! at last
Post by Joey Goldstein
It so happens that the lower strings of a piano have many more audible
overtones than pretty much any commonly used instrument that I am aware of.
If the volume of these overtones can not be controlled in some way,
especially the volume of the 7th partial, the instrument itself becomes
less useful for music-making in general.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
lol, At least we have something that we can agree on, even it is is
"Much Ado About Nothing"!

BTW, Happy New Year Joey (and all) Its nice to converse with you in a
civil manner.

LJS
Joey Goldstein
2011-01-08 15:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
At any rate...
I'm willing to concede that Berlioz may have been referring to *both*
the 7th partial and the min 7th interval in his comments.
I.e.
The 7th partial of a tone, if sufficiently audible, would indeed cause
problems, harmonically speaking, with any 12tet min 7th interval sounded
above it.
Eg.
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
But the 12tet G in that octave is tuned to G783.989.
If the 7th partial of the fundamental of the lower tone of a 12tet min
7th interval is sufficiently audible, it is bound to clash with the
fundamental of the 12tet min 7th above the same tone.
Actually, based on something Hans just posted, I'm tempted to take it
all back.
The interval I've described above, A110-G783.989 (or G770), is not a min
7th interval.
It's actually a min 21st interval.
If we're talking about the actual min 7th interval formed by A110 and
G195.998 (or G192.5, the 7:4 G) then I don't see the problem, unless the
overtones of both tones are really really loud, which is not usually the
case even on the low strings of a piano.
If the overtones of both tones are really really loud then Hans has a
point that the 7th partial of the A and the 4th partial of the G will
create audible and annoying beats.

Even with A110-G783.989 (or G770) the 7th partial of the lower tone
would need to be really loud to create problems, IMO.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I don't have time right now to calculate how an audible 7th partial
might affect the harmonicity of the other possible intervals in 12tet
tuning, but I'm guessing that the 12tet min 7th interval isn't the only
interval that will have these types of problems.
From my pov the phrase, "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor
seventh", is self-contradictory - unless further qualification is given.
I.e. The term "minor seventh" refers usually to a musical interval
within a diatonic scale system.
It does not usually refer to an harmonic, although, as I said earlier,
many musicians will refer to the 7th partial as being a min 7th.
Likewise the term harmonic is not usually used to refer to an interval.
So the phrase "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh" itself is
actually kind of meaningless.
He'd have to qualify his statement to make it fully intelligible.
Eg.
Which harmonic is he referring to?
Is it an harmonic of the lower tone comprising the interval, or of the
upper tone comprising the interval?
Etc., etc.
But as far as the suitability, in general, of 12tet min 7th intervals
for harmony is concerned, Berlioz has said absolutely nothing.
It so happens that the lower strings of a piano have many more audible
overtones than pretty much any commonly used instrument that I am aware of.
If the volume of these overtones can not be controlled in some way,
especially the volume of the 7th partial, the instrument itself becomes
less useful for music-making in general.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Hans Aberg
2011-01-08 17:14:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Joey Goldstein
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
But the 12tet G in that octave is tuned to G783.989.
If the 7th partial of the fundamental of the lower tone of a 12tet min
7th interval is sufficiently audible, it is bound to clash with the
fundamental of the 12tet min 7th above the same tone.
Actually, based on something Hans just posted, I'm tempted to take it
all back.
The interval I've described above, A110-G783.989 (or G770), is not a min
7th interval.
It's actually a min 21st interval.
If we're talking about the actual min 7th interval formed by A110 and
G195.998 (or G192.5, the 7:4 G) then I don't see the problem, unless the
overtones of both tones are really really loud, which is not usually the
case even on the low strings of a piano.
This last you write is the overtone problem discussed.

In figures, if A110 and E12 G195.998 are played, then the first has a
7th partial at 770 Hz, and the second a 4th partial at 783.991 Hz, with
a difference of 13.991 Hz. Transpose up one octave, and the difference
will be 27.982 Hz.

When I measured a piano, the 6th partial and below were strong, but the
7th and above were weak. So on such a piano, there would be no problem.
Post by Joey Goldstein
If the overtones of both tones are really really loud then Hans has a
point that the 7th partial of the A and the 4th partial of the G will
create audible and annoying beats.
The Steinway grands stand out as being particularly bright in tone, so
they may have more overtones. So these grands may have to suppress the
7th partial.
Post by Joey Goldstein
Even with A110-G783.989 (or G770) the 7th partial of the lower tone
would need to be really loud to create problems, IMO.
In addition, it depends on where in the frequency range the interval is
placed. If the difference is more than about 20 - 30 Hz, one will start
to hear a difference tone instead. Then for lower beat rate values, it
depends on taste. Up to 20 Hz can be used for the tremulant on
accordions (and gamelans), but would unacceptable in other contexts.
J.B. Wood
2011-01-10 12:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
The Steinway grands stand out as being particularly bright in tone, so
they may have more overtones. So these grands may have to suppress the
7th partial.
Hello, Hans, and I'm curious as to what other pianos you're comparing
the S&S grands? To my ears American-manufactured grand pianos,
particularly those of S&S, have always been a lot less bright than their
Asian counterparts. I've always associated brightness with high-string
tension, low-quality pianos (although brightness does seem to enhance
the performance of jazz and new-age solo-piano compositions IMHO). Once
your ears have become accustomed to classical repertoire performed on a
properly tuned and regulated S&S model D you get spoiled ;-) Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
LJS
2011-01-09 06:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Joey Goldstein
At any rate...
I'm willing to concede that Berlioz may have been referring to *both*
the 7th partial and the min 7th interval in his comments.
I.e.
The 7th partial of a tone, if sufficiently audible, would indeed cause
problems, harmonically speaking, with any 12tet min 7th interval sounded
above it.
Eg.
The 7th partial of A110 is G770.
But the 12tet G in that octave is tuned to G783.989.
If the 7th partial of the fundamental of the lower tone of a 12tet min
7th interval is sufficiently audible, it is bound to clash with the
fundamental of the 12tet min 7th above the same tone.
Actually, based on something Hans just posted, I'm tempted to take it
all back.
The interval I've described above, A110-G783.989 (or G770), is not a min
7th interval.
It's actually a min 21st interval.
If we're talking about the actual min 7th interval formed by A110 and
G195.998 (or G192.5, the 7:4 G) then I don't see the problem, unless the
overtones of both tones are really really loud, which is not usually the
case even on the low strings of a piano.
If the overtones of both tones are really really loud then Hans has a
point that the 7th partial of the A and the 4th partial of the G will
create audible and annoying beats.
Even with A110-G783.989 (or G770) the 7th partial of the lower tone
would need to be really loud to create problems, IMO.
Post by Joey Goldstein
I don't have time right now to calculate how an audible 7th partial
might affect the harmonicity of the other possible intervals in 12tet
tuning, but I'm guessing that the 12tet min 7th interval isn't the only
interval that will have these types of problems.
 From my pov the phrase, "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor
seventh", is self-contradictory - unless further qualification is given.
I.e. The term "minor seventh" refers usually to a musical interval
within a diatonic scale system.
It does not usually refer to an harmonic, although, as I said earlier,
many musicians will refer to the 7th partial as being a min 7th.
Likewise the term harmonic is not usually used to refer to an interval.
So the phrase "that unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh" itself is
actually kind of meaningless.
He'd have to qualify his statement to make it fully intelligible.
Eg.
Which harmonic is he referring to?
Is it an harmonic of the lower tone comprising the interval, or of the
upper tone comprising the interval?
Etc., etc.
But as far as the suitability, in general, of 12tet min 7th intervals
for harmony is concerned, Berlioz has said absolutely nothing.
It so happens that the lower strings of a piano have many more audible
overtones than pretty much any commonly used instrument that I am aware of.
If the volume of these overtones can not be controlled in some way,
especially the volume of the 7th partial, the instrument itself becomes
less useful for music-making in general.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That interaction is certainly a possibility. But consider this: If you
have not noticed it by now, you are not one of those rare (if they
really exists at all) people that hear these upper overtones to such
an extent that they can't be filtered out, in which case they are not
important except in special circumstances.

As a musician, you should be able to hear and you have probably had to
play from time to time with another fixed pitch instrument that was
not in the best of tune. A pain in the butt? Yes. Impossible to play
with? Not if you are a musician. Our ability to hear music in its
ideal state is one of the things that sets musicians apart from the
mainstream listener.

They are, however, a factor in orchestration. With all instruments,
but especially wind instruments, some of these partials are more
prominant and some are weaker on each instrument due to its shape,
material and several other factore that alter the prominence of
various partials. This is what gives each of the instruments and
peoples individual voices, a special and unique timbre. When you start
to mix strings, flutes, oboe, clarinet, horn and say trumpet, some
tones will subtlely clash in the overtones and this will make that
combination less or more resonant and the intermodulation can be more
stable or more tense than others. i.e. some will be good and othrs
will not.

If you are getting into thinking about this, consider that on a
guitar, since you change the length of the string to change notes,
every tone you play has a full overtone series. BUT, on a trumpet, for
example, there is no fundamental. Its open sound starts on the 2nd
element. its low C would have C G C E G etc in its series but not the
lower C. The Open G would have a series of G C E G etc and the G above
the staff would have G Bb/A C D E F(#) G etc. Other fingerings used
for these notes would of course have different tones in their series.

This is sort of like what happens when you are playing harmonics on
your guitar strings. All the tones below the harmonic being played can
not be sounded as the string does not vibrate on that node so that
harmonic is not produced!

Unfortunately, if you disagree with this whole premise, I can not back
up what I am saying except with logic. I have not been able to find
anything written on this topic. if you know of any writings that prove
or disprove this concept, I would appreciate your sharing it with me.

Other than that, I really don't have any interest in the topic as I
believe that musicians filter out all the harmonics according to the
way they like to hear the music so it really doesen't matter except,
as I say, as it applies to orchestration and as musicians we can hear
what is actually there as well so if we write one instrument on the
3rd of a chord and another on the7th, that combination of instruments
on those specific tones will either sound right or sound wrong and we
can tell that by simply listening to it.

LJS
LJS
2011-01-07 20:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
So tell us again how unsuitable the 12tet min 7th interval is for harmony.
That *is* your position after all, isn't it?
I merely noted Berlioz observations on it.
You really and truly believe that Berlioz thought that 12tet min 7th
intervals are unsuitable for harmony?
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh"?
We know Joey's interpretation. What we are not clear about is YOURS!
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor
seventy"? Your opinion is the one that seems to be not understood.
Post by Hans Aberg
Do truly and sincerely believe that m7 in whatever tuning interval you
prefer is suitable in all types of music, worldwide and historically?
Since Berlioz was talking about the piano to a piano manufacturer, the
context would certainly suggest that he was talking about the 7th
element of the OTS that produces a minor 7th to the fundamental. His
entire note was one about the piano. There is nothing to suggest that
he meant the interval of the m7 in any tuning but only on the
unpleasant timbre that he considered this flattened (relative to 12-
tet) produced and that he was disturbing to him. The piano
manufacturer would not have anything to do with interval of the m7 in
a musically harmonic sense.

Considering another related context, if he were talking about the
clash of the 7th partial to the fundamental tone with the fundamental
being the root of another tone played on another piano key that was a
m7th above the root, then it is hard to imagine that he would not have
been more specific as this context would require that each note on
the piano would be re-tuned according to its function in harmony. Nor
very likely if you have ever heard the writings of Berlioz or anyone
else composing for the piano. The root and any other interval would
not be a problem, as the 7th element would not be next to the keyed
piano note that made up the m7th.

This is context. So if you say that the interval of a m7 is what
Berlioz was talking about, the statement would be out of context to
the evidence of the context of the letter he wrote. I think that Joey
heard you to say that it was the INTERVAL of the m7th that was not
suitable for harmony and this is certainly not true. It is used all
the time and weather you admit it or not, since (purely a guess) 99%
of the listeners can hear the m7th in a Dominant 7th and it works
beautifully, maybe they are on to something. To use a phrase, "100,000
Frenchmen can't be wrong!"

But in the context of each string's (especially the lower ones) having
its 7th element of the partials prominent, well, that could certainly
be a problem with some people's ears. He would hear a clash in each
string and that clash on each note would produce 4 separate out of
tune m7th in subliminal sound every time there was a V7 type chord
sounding. If my ears isolated that harmonic every time that I heard a
piano note, I too would be upset and grateful enough to write a letter
to the manufacturer as Berlioz did.
Post by Hans Aberg
And you were the first in this thread to speak about the "suitability"
of it in the music. Is it something you thin about right now, and want
to bring up for that reason?
And as for the definition, from what I have seen, "pure" and "Just"
intonations are the same (the first is used in Germanic countries); you
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation#Diatonic_scale
The value for the Just minor seventh is 16/9, the same as in the Harvard
dictionary, and as on this microtonal encyclopedia
   http://tonalsoft.com/enc/m/minor-7th.aspx
On this last link, interval 7/4 is called harmonic seventh (and it also
uses the word "Just" in the more modern, more general sense "rational"),
as here
   http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html
Post by Joey Goldstein
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
It must be difficult for you living in a world with all that noise
around you all the time, that noise that that the rest of hear as
beautiful music.
You have truly strange comments. Also note your "rest of hear".
Sorry. I left out the word "us".
Hans, do you realize how many grammatical and wrong syntax mistakes
you make and we generally don't bring them up out of respect for
someone working outside their native tongue? It is difficult
sometimes, but we try to understand what you are trying to say. I
really don't think that you should be pointing out Joey's "truly
strange comments" until you are more aware of what you are actually
saying. Its the "pot calling the kettle black".
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
The rest of us hear beautiful harmony played on pianos and guitars all
the time.
What is the strength of the 7th partial on those that you like? Have you
checked the pianos Berlioz didn't like?
There you go. To me, your questions here sound "truly strange". To be
honest, I still don't know if you think Berlioz talking about a
single string timbre or the actual interval. Your contexts have been
so confused it is hard to have a clear opinion of what you are trying
to say.

BTW. your comment about if both Joey and I are in agreement it must be
wrong is another one of your strange comments. Joey and I have
disagreements. I respect his opinion on things that he knows. He if
very learned on many things. He has, for example, demonstrated a much
higher level of classical theory than we have heard in this group and
he is especially knowledgeable in jazz theory. We generally disagree
on context shifts between the two and other things (sometimes silly)
but if we agree on something, it is most likely so basic and so
clearly stated that even the two of us can see it as a truth, then
most likely it will be true. If two people that always agree with each
other, they would be yes men and that can lead to false logic. When
two disagreeing people agree on something, it is more likely to be
true.

I just thought that you should see that your statement of this is
certainly "truly strange" and once again shows that you are not really
paying attention to the context and true meanings of posts.

LJS
Hans Aberg
2011-01-07 20:54:10 UTC
Permalink
On 2011/01/07 21:07, LJS wrote:
[I don't have time to respond to your whole post - it is too long.]
Post by LJS
Post by Hans Aberg
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh"?
We know Joey's interpretation. What we are not clear about is YOURS!
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor
seventy"? Your opinion is the one that seems to be not understood.
It may have been that the 7th partial was too strong on those pianos,
which would increase the amplitudes of the 7/4 due to the proximity to
the E12 m7 and that they somehow reduced it.
Post by LJS
Post by Hans Aberg
Do truly and sincerely believe that m7 in whatever tuning interval you
prefer is suitable in all types of music, worldwide and historically?
Since Berlioz was talking about the piano to a piano manufacturer, the
context would certainly suggest that he was talking about the 7th
element of the OTS that produces a minor 7th to the fundamental.
The 7th partial contributes to the beats in the E12 m7.

Try harmony with sinusoids, making sure that there is no distortion in
the system.
Post by LJS
His
entire note was one about the piano. There is nothing to suggest that
he meant the interval of the m7 in any tuning but only on the
unpleasant timbre that he considered this flattened (relative to 12-
tet) produced and that he was disturbing to him. The piano
manufacturer would not have anything to do with interval of the m7 in
a musically harmonic sense.
Actually, the m7 in meantone and E12 do not differ much with respect to
stability.

On the other hand, the pianos of that time were much darker in tone,
whereas the Steinway is known for its bright tone, which I think may be
the reason for them hitting that problem.

Listen for the Chopin piano samples here, on modern and 19th century piano.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano
Post by LJS
Considering another related context, if he were talking about the
clash of the 7th partial to the fundamental tone with the fundamental
being the root of another tone played on another piano key that was a
m7th above the root, then it is hard to imagine that he would not have
been more specific as this context would require that each note on
the piano would be re-tuned according to its function in harmony.
If you retune as to use the harmonic 7/4, then there are other problems
coming up.

If you listen to this 7-limit example, I think you will find there are
some rough parts in it:
http://www.kylegann.com/DayRevisitednotes.html
LJS
2011-01-07 23:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
[I don't have time to respond to your whole post - it is too long.]
Post by LJS
Post by Hans Aberg
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh"?
We know Joey's interpretation. What we are not clear about is YOURS!
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor
seventy"? Your opinion is the one that seems to be not understood.
It may have been that the 7th partial was too strong on those pianos,
which would increase the amplitudes of the 7/4 due to the proximity to
the E12 m7 and that they somehow reduced it.
Do you realize that you have NOT answered the question? The question
was about what you are talking about. Which m7th? the interval or the
7th element of the OTS?

Maybe you are just now forming an opinion. I don't know. Your answer
is rather vague as to what you think. "It may have been" is a lot
different then "Joey, you don't know what the F you are talking
about!" Do you think that it is the amplitued of the 7th hpartial
that is involved in one string? (and then replicated on each stringto
make the timbre of the piano string more pure. We still don't know.

You actually described (sort of) exactly what I stated. BUT I am not
sure if that is what you meant if I consider the earlier replies that
you had when I said that the first time.

Here you seem to be saying that you have had no opinion in the past
but now you think it might be timbre. Is THAT what you are saying?"
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by LJS
Post by Hans Aberg
Do truly and sincerely believe that m7 in whatever tuning interval you
prefer is suitable in all types of music, worldwide and historically?
Since Berlioz was talking about the piano to a piano manufacturer, the
context would certainly suggest that he was talking about the 7th
element of the OTS that produces a minor 7th to the fundamental.
The 7th partial contributes to the beats in the E12 m7.
Try harmony with sinusoids, making sure that there is no distortion in
the system.
Quite frankly, I don't think I know any musicians that I have played
with, including the symphonic musicians, that know what a sinusoid is.
Maybe it seems strange to you, but the musicians I know simply hear
things. They are not physicists, they are musicians. If they occur in
music, I have heard them and they sound fine. Unless the piano was out
of tune and even then I can hear the music as if it were in tune in my
head when I replay it or when I adjust my hearing to actually listen
to the music.

I could care less what a sinusoid is even though I do actually know a
little about them. Its really not important to know of them to play,
listen to or compose music thus, they are not of interest to me. How
does the music sound when played by a good musician on a good
instrument? That is what I am interested in.
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by LJS
His
entire note was one about the piano. There is nothing to suggest that
he meant the interval of the m7 in any tuning but only on the
unpleasant timbre that he considered this flattened (relative to 12-
tet) produced and that he was disturbing to him. The piano
manufacturer would not have anything to do with interval of the m7 in
a musically harmonic sense.
Actually, the m7 in meantone and E12 do not differ much with respect to
stability.
We are not talking about that are we? Meantone and E12? My post has
nothing to do with that. Its that CONTEXT thing again. (Or is it you
just can't say anything unless it has some sort of tuning in it?
Post by Hans Aberg
On the other hand, the pianos of that time were much darker in tone,
whereas the Steinway is known for its bright tone, which I think may be
the reason for them hitting that problem.
Listen for the Chopin piano samples here, on modern and 19th century piano.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano
Post by LJS
Considering another related context, if he were talking about the
clash of the 7th partial to the fundamental tone with the fundamental
being the root of another tone played on another piano key that was a
m7th above the root, then it is hard to imagine that he would not have
been more specific as  this context would require that each note on
the piano would be  re-tuned according to its function in harmony.
If you retune as to use the harmonic 7/4, then there are other problems
coming up.
If you listen to this 7-limit example, I think you will find there are
   http://www.kylegann.com/DayRevisitednotes.html
Hans, you must live in some kind of vacumme and have run out of air a
long time ago. There is no way that one could retune a piano from any
century for each harmonic context and the worst part is my post is not
about music, or piano, or m7th in any tuning. IT IS ABOUT CONTEXT!!!

I give you an example of how you are unaware of the context of
people's post and you come right back with your most out of context
post of this entire thread, and that is saying quite a lot!!

Suppose I could be wrong about the ESL, the problem is seeming to go
well beyond that. AND you still have not answered the question at the
top? You spent a lot of time on nonesense that is OUT OF CONTEXT in
multiple ways.

What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor
seventh" as stated in the Berlioz letter?


LJS
Hans Aberg
2011-01-08 09:01:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by LJS
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Hans Aberg
What is your interpretation of "unpleasant harmonic of the minor seventh"?
...
Post by LJS
Post by Hans Aberg
It may have been that the 7th partial was too strong on those pianos,
which would increase the amplitudes of the 7/4 due to the proximity to
the E12 m7 and that they somehow reduced it.
Do you realize that you have NOT answered the question? The question
was about what you are talking about. Which m7th? the interval or the
7th element of the OTS?
In any tuning (Just, meantone, E12) of the m7 interval, the 7th partial
of the lower note will interact with the 4th partial of the upper note
as to produce beats.
LJS
2011-01-07 13:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by Joey Goldstein
Just because you don't understand what I'm saying does not make it wrong.
But you seem to think that there can be harmonic instability problems
when there are no partials to interact. It is possible to remap the
partials so that wholly new stable harmonies become possible. One
stretch tunes inharmonic instruments one stretch tunes them so that the
partials line up better in order to improve harmonic stability.
Harmonic instability:
A V7 chord is an example of harmonic stability. The tritone creates
that instability.

According to your statement, taken in the context of harmony or more
specifically in the context of functional harmony, the Dominant 7th
chord would have no instability if it were sounded with pure
electrically generated sine waves that did not produce overtones

I am not sure that electronic sine waves do not pick up overtones with
the speaker vibrates the air to produce a tone so if there is no such
thing as a pure sine wave that has no overtones when it reaches the
ear, then one would have to assume that you are saying that the more
pure the tones, the less instability would be created by a Dominant
7th chord.

To ME, all the above statements are rather silly. It looks to me as
though there are context problems with your statement and with my
statements if you want to put them together in the same post.

So, how does it seem to you? Do you see any contextural problems with
these statements? or are you really saying that a V7 chord will have
less or no instability if played with sine waves?

Or to put these statements into the real context, do you understand
what "context" means and are you aware of how easily it is to use the
wrong context and produce faulty logic?

LJS

Is that what you are saying or is it true that context does matter?

LJS
J.B. Wood
2011-01-04 20:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by J.B. Wood
Assuming a root note of C, for example, the 7/4 interval, if
treated as a m7, is then associated with the note Bb vice A# (for a M6).
In what tuning? In E12 it is 31.174 c lower than the m7. To far away for
harmony - thus it is a good idea suppressing it on E12 instruments like
the piano.
Hello, and in my previous post I erroneously identified C-A# as a M6
rather then an augmented 6th (A6). The issue here is what to call the
7/4 ratio, a m7, A6 or something else entirely. Once you start
identifying 9/7 and 7/6 as major and minor thirds, respectively, then by
extension you're talking about 7/4 as a m7. If you want to use 12-TET
for reference, then 7/4 (~969 cents) when compared to the 12-TET m7/aug6
(1000 cents) the 7/4 interval differs by about 31 cents, as you point
out. As for harmony, keep in mind that, at least in a just sense, the
7th harmonic like the third and fifth harmonics, line up quite nicely
with the harmonic series of the root note of a chord. So for a cappella
harmony this can be advantageous.

There is something on wikipedia called "septimal meantone temperament"
but the septimal ratios I'm referring to are associated with a 7-limit
JI tuning. Now I've got to figure out what ratio applies to a septimal
A6 if we designate the 7/4 a m7. If we can designate a septimal
chromatic semitone then we can apply that to a septimal M6 to obtain the
A6. Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Hans Aberg
2011-01-04 21:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.B. Wood
Post by Hans Aberg
Post by J.B. Wood
Assuming a root note of C, for example, the 7/4 interval, if
treated as a m7, is then associated with the note Bb vice A# (for a M6).
In what tuning? In E12 it is 31.174 c lower than the m7. To far away for
harmony - thus it is a good idea suppressing it on E12 instruments like
the piano.
Hello, and in my previous post I erroneously identified C-A# as a M6
rather then an augmented 6th (A6). The issue here is what to call the
7/4 ratio, a m7, A6 or something else entirely. Once you start
identifying 9/7 and 7/6 as major and minor thirds, respectively, then by
extension you're talking about 7/4 as a m7.
So don't do that. People use "harmonic" or "septimal" in order to
indicate that it is not in the ordinary major/minor scales.
Post by J.B. Wood
If you want to use 12-TET
for reference, then 7/4 (~969 cents) when compared to the 12-TET m7/aug6
(1000 cents) the 7/4 interval differs by about 31 cents, as you point
out.
Or use E72: lowering two E72 tonesteps, that is, one E36 tonestep. A lot.
Post by J.B. Wood
As for harmony, keep in mind that, at least in a just sense, the
7th harmonic like the third and fifth harmonics, line up quite nicely
with the harmonic series of the root note of a chord. So for a cappella
harmony this can be advantageous.
It is possible to do harmony with the 7th partial, or the 11th partial,
the latter which is close to an E12 quartertone (a E24 tonestep). The
problem is that these do not fit into the major/minor scales.
Post by J.B. Wood
There is something on wikipedia called "septimal meantone temperament"
but the septimal ratios I'm referring to are associated with a 7-limit
JI tuning.
One tunes the augmented sixth exactly to the interval 7/4 (in addition
to the octave set to 2). The difference from E31 and quarter-comma
meantone is very slight.
Post by J.B. Wood
Now I've got to figure out what ratio applies to a septimal
A6 if we designate the 7/4 a m7. If we can designate a septimal
chromatic semitone then we can apply that to a septimal M6 to obtain the
A6.
So septimal meantone does not produce anything very different from all
the other meantones that want to approximate the major third 5/4 well.
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2011-01-02 14:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
The octave 2 is exact and the perfect fifth 3/2 is 7 E12 -1.955 c (cents).
Starting at the string "7 E12", I can't read that. I *suspect* that you
could spell it out as "seven 12TET semitones". I can read:
660 - 440# * 2 ^ (1 / 72) ^ 42 = .7448861742601419
In other words, 72TET is closer to 659:440.
Post by Hans Aberg
The major third 5/4 is 3 E12 tonesteps minus one E72 + 2.980 c.
Okay...you are using three systems, and you are trying to use 1200TET to
measure error in 72TET without proving that 1200TET is error free, which it
is not, so again, in plain old decimal error:
550 - 440# * 2 ^ (1 / 72) ^ 23 = .9460298705488641
It is very close to 549:440.
Post by Hans Aberg
The interval 7/4 is 10 E12 minus 2 E72 + 2.159 c.
In short,
770 - 440# * 2 ^ (1 / 72) ^ 58 = .9597652332162683

The interval 11/8 is 6
Post by Hans Aberg
E12 minus 3 E72 + 1.318 c (a slightly sharp E12 quarter tone).
605 - 440# * 2 ^ (1 / 72) ^ 33 = .4603951184407962

I do not need a table to reduce fractions.
I need a table to find fractions on a 72TET system, and those ratios are
approximate. Sure, with a larger system, they get more exact, and why bother
if you can write them exactly in the first place?
_______
Confucius say: If you turn an oriental around, he become disoriented.
Hans Aberg
2011-01-06 09:00:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Post by Hans Aberg
The octave 2 is exact and the perfect fifth 3/2 is 7 E12 -1.955 c (cents).
Starting at the string "7 E12", I can't read that. I *suspect* that you
could spell it out as "seven 12TET semitones".
Yes.
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
660 - 440# * 2 ^ (1 / 72) ^ 42 = .7448861742601419
In other words, 72TET is closer to 659:440.
I do not see the context, but the E12 and E72 approximations of the
3-limit are the same. But E72 improves on the 11-limit, thus it has been
a candidate for E12 extensions.
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Post by Hans Aberg
The major third 5/4 is 3 E12 tonesteps minus one E72 + 2.980 c.
Okay...you are using three systems,
E72 contains E36 and E24, and they all contain E12. E24 is good for the
11th partial, E36 for the 7th partial and 5^2, E72 also for the 5th partial.

So if one is just using the 7th partial or the interval (as in a Persian
music description) 27/25, it suffices with E36.
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
I do not need a table to reduce fractions.
I need a table to find fractions on a 72TET system, and those ratios are
approximate.
Here is one:
3/2 7 E12 + 1.96 c
5/4 4 E12 - 1 E72 + 2.98 c
7/4 10 E12 - 2 E72 + 2.16 c
11/8 6 E12 - 3 E72 + 1.32 c
13/8 8 E12 + 2 E72 + 7.19 c
17/16 1 E12 + 4.96 c
19/16 3 E12 - 2.49 c

As you can see, the partials 2 and 3 are with E12, 5 lowers one E72
step, 7 two steps, and 11 three steps. The partial 13 is not so good,
but still better than 5/4 in E12. Partials 17 and 19 are probably too
weak on any musical instrument to have any significant role.
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Sure, with a larger system, they get more exact, and why bother
if you can write them exactly in the first place?
The system is fairly simple. If you go up to E144, then partial 13
improves, but you do not any longer get that simple offset system as above.

3/2 7 E12 +1.955000865387532 c
5/4 4 E12 - 2 E144 +2.980380531501482 c
5^2/16 8 E12 - 3 E144 -2.372572270330411 c
5^3/128 0 E12 - 5 E144 +0.607808261171112 c
7/4 10 E12 - 4 E144 +2.159239802458526 c
11/8 6 E12 - 6 E144 +1.317942364756801 c
13/8 8 E12 + 5 E144 -1.139004897356072 c
17/16 1 E12 + 1 E144 -3.377923832926008 c
19/16 3 E12 -2.486983867697326 c
23/16 6 E12 + 3 E144 +3.274347268415352 c
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2011-01-07 19:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Subject-Was: Tweaking Equal to get something Just

It seems like Hans Aberg is bent on answering my question in English with a
post of a table that I hav no interest in using. First, I would hav to
select which of an infinity of equal temperaments I could use: I could try
writing a tune with five tones and a constant ratio between them, with
seventy-two, or with any number in between. Why not fourty-two? 21? In a
book called "Temperament", I saw pictures of early organs with nineteen and
thirty-one keys *per octave*.

If I were to design a keyboard, myself, it would hav about sixty keys, all
white, and a dial for the fundmental, the keys getting closer together in
tone as they go up, just like the harmonic series. There are a number of
reasons, both practical and financial, why I won't bother.

Why would I use a table if it was actually a barrier to naming harmonic
ratios and analyzing harmony? My dominant mode of output is the duet. How am
I supposed to really know if ten cents is too far off? With higher pitches:
1202 to 800 Hz, instead of 601 to 400Hz, for an imperfect fifth, results in
more dissonance, so cents are not a scalable measure of error.

I write in the harmonic series; natural numbers, also known as the overtone
series, or O.T.S. AND nothing is preventing anybody from writing their notes
as fractions in relation to a previous note, or fractions in relation to a
root (although that does not make duet analysis by eye very convenient).
I've already written (by example, mostly) how to convert a table of
fractions in relation to a root as a series of naturals. A series of
fractions in relation to a previous note also converts, exactly, to a series
of naturals. That latter format is something that I *might* use to avoid
oddball harmonic ratios ("intervals", which is a word that I prefer to
reserve for rests, for which I do not use a natural number).
_______
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/ BrewJay's Babble Bin
Jack Campin - bogus address
2011-01-08 21:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
It seems like Hans Aberg is bent on answering my question in English with a
post of a table that I hav no interest in using. First, I would hav to
select which of an infinity of equal temperaments I could use: I could try
writing a tune with five tones and a constant ratio between them, with
seventy-two, or with any number in between. Why not fourty-two? 21? In a
book called "Temperament", I saw pictures of early organs with nineteen and
thirty-one keys *per octave*.
Those designs don't enforce any specific tuning system. They simply
mean (for the 19-note system) that you have distinct pitches for all
of these:

A A# Bb B B# C C# Db D D# Eb E E# F F# Gb G G# Ab

That is, it maps onto existing musical practice (the keyboards usually
divide up the area normally taken up by two enharmonically equivalent
pitches, so you can sorta ignore the refinements). Usually the tuning
system will be something like 19-ET, but it doesn't have to be exactly
that to do what a composer wants. It's not likely that one of those
instruments was ever tuned exactly in equal temperament.

21 or 42 don't correspond to anything that anybody wants as a way of
extending existing compositional options.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile: 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Hans Aberg
2009-10-01 21:12:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
I know all that, but I was wondering if there was a mathematical
formula for this.
Tom described how to work it out in E12, which gives intervals up to
enharmonic scale degrees.

If one wants to get the intervals in full, one has to go back to the
traditional method of generating intervals using perfect fifths and
octaves. This generates in particular the major and minor seconds M & m.
Sharps # and flats b raises resp lowers with the interval M - m. One can
then write out all intervals as follows:
A1 A2 A3
P1 M2 M3 A4 A5 A6 A7
D1 m2 m3 P4 P5 M6 M7 A8
D2 D3 D4 D5 m6 m7 P8
D2
Here: A augmented, D diminished, P perfect, m minor and M major. The M
are horizontally, the m on the \ diagonal, and #, b on the / diagonal.
Also not that notes of the same scale degree are collected on the /
diagonal: accidentals do not change the scale degree.

These are the same intervals notated differently using the roman
numerals - as for the latter, there are different ways.

So assume that you want the compute the difference between II = M2 and
IV = P4. Check the pattern above, and translate it so that II is on P1;
then IV is on m3. So the interval is a minor third (in any tuning built
this way).

Alternatively, one can write down the intervals algebraically as integer
combinations of M & m, starting with P1 set to 0*M + 0*m. Then M2 = M,
P4 = 2M + m, so P4 - M2 = M + m = m3, as before. (Work this out on your
own, writing out the combinations for the intervals above.)

One can make a quick check on scale degrees (which will also correspond
to the position on the staff when notation). Since alteration does not
change the scale degrees the difference between II and IV are 2 scale
degrees. So the resulting interval difference must be 2 scale degrees
relative P1, which is the case of m3.

The diagram above can also be written out relative named notes A, B, C,
D, E, F, G. Then it becomes
A# B# Cx Dx Ex
A B C# D# E# Fx Gx Ax Bx
Bb C D E F# G# A# B#
Cb Db Eb F G A B C'# D'#
Dbb Ebb Fb Gb Ab Bb C' D' E'
Here, x is double-sharo.

If you want to compute an interval, just find the pattern, and then move
it to the first diagram above. Transpositions can be computed by
translations in these diagrams.

Hans
Jonathan
2009-10-03 20:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans Aberg
One can
       A1  A2  A3
     P1  M2  M3  A4  A5  A6  A7
   D1  m2  m3  P4  P5  M6  M7  A8
     D2  D3  D4  D5  m6  m7  P8
                           D2
Here: A augmented, D diminished, P perfect, m minor and M major. The M
are horizontally, the m on the \ diagonal, and #, b on the / diagonal.
Also not that notes of the same scale degree are collected on the /
diagonal: accidentals do not change the scale degree.
These are the same intervals notated differently using the roman
numerals - as for the latter, there are different ways.
So assume that you want the compute the difference between II = M2 and
IV = P4. Check the pattern above, and translate it so that II is on P1;
then IV is on m3. So the interval is a minor third (in any tuning built
this way).
Hans, this sounds interesting, but I don't quite understand how to use
the pattern.
For the example you gave, am I first supposed to identify M2 and P4 in
the diagram, and somehow navigate to m3, which is the solution?
Post by Hans Aberg
translate it so that II is on P1;
then IV is on m3
Thanks,
Jonathan.
Hans Aberg
2009-10-03 21:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Hans Aberg
One can
A1 A2 A3
P1 M2 M3 A4 A5 A6 A7
D1 m2 m3 P4 P5 M6 M7 A8
D2 D3 D4 D5 m6 m7 P8
D2
Here: A augmented, D diminished, P perfect, m minor and M major. The M
are horizontally, the m on the \ diagonal, and #, b on the / diagonal.
Also not that notes of the same scale degree are collected on the /
diagonal: accidentals do not change the scale degree.
These are the same intervals notated differently using the roman
numerals - as for the latter, there are different ways.
So assume that you want the compute the difference between II = M2 and
IV = P4. Check the pattern above, and translate it so that II is on P1;
then IV is on m3. So the interval is a minor third (in any tuning built
this way).
Hans, this sounds interesting, but I don't quite understand how to use
the pattern.
For the example you gave, am I first supposed to identify M2 and P4 in
the diagram, and somehow navigate to m3, which is the solution?
Post by Hans Aberg
translate it so that II is on P1;
then IV is on m3
In the diagram above first identify the pattern for II = M2 and IV = P4.
It is the stars * here, adding some o for identification:
* o
o *
Then move this pattern so that the first * is on P1; then the other ends
up m3 = ii.

In effect, you are computing translations in an x-y coordinate system:
the M's are on the x-axis, and the m's on an y-axis that goes on the \
diagonal. So you are altering all p*M + q*m combinations with the same
amount, which then corresponds to a transposition of pitches.

Hans
J.B. Wood
2011-01-05 12:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Hello, all. Last night I decided to cook-up a 7-limit JI scale such
that one can play a few 4:5:6:7 chords. Since these 7-limit chords
contain both 5-limit and septimal intervals I began with the customary
5-limit JI diatonic scale with pitch ratios 1-9/8-5/4-4/5-3/2-5/3-15/8.
For the chromatic notes, I decided to treat 7/4 as a m7 (C-Bb in the
key of C) and use a chromatic semitone (e.g. B-Bb) of (15/8)/(7/4) =
15/14. There are three diatonic semitones (e.g. E-F, C-Db, D#-E) having
ratios (4/3)/(5/4) = 16/15, (9/8)/(15/14) = 21/20 and (5/4)/(135/112) =
28/27.

I won't list all the notes/pitch ratios (I calculated ratios for 17
notes per octave) here but for comparison to the 7/4 (C-Bb) m7 we have a
25/14 (C-A#) A6 (5/3 * 15/14). The septimal m7 and septimal A6
intervals have widths of ~969 and ~1004 cents, respectively.
-- -
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Hans Aberg
2011-01-05 14:35:22 UTC
Permalink
...I decided to cook-up a 7-limit JI scale such that
one can play a few 4:5:6:7 chords. Since these 7-limit chords contain
both 5-limit and septimal intervals I began with the customary 5-limit
JI diatonic scale with pitch ratios 1-9/8-5/4-4/5-3/2-5/3-15/8. For the
chromatic notes, I decided to treat 7/4 as a m7 (C-Bb in the key of C)
and use a chromatic semitone (e.g. B-Bb) of (15/8)/(7/4) = 15/14.
An extended meantone with m7 set to 7/4 gets a very narrow minor second
m = 22.0648 c and a major second M = 231.174 c, which can be used for a
slendro (pentatonic scale). On the other hand, setting m to 15/14 =
119.442 c is between a quarter-comma meantone having m = 117.108 c, M =
193.157 c and a 2/7-comma meantone which cane defined by +1 = 25/24, and
has m = 120.948 c, M = 191.621 c. The septimal meantone which has +6 =
7/4 has m = 115.587 c, M = 193.765 c.
Hans Aberg
2011-01-05 17:26:11 UTC
Permalink
Hello, all. Last night I decided to cook-up a 7-limit JI scale such that
one can play a few 4:5:6:7 chords.
Here is an example of 7-limit harmony:
http://www.kylegann.com/DayRevisitednotes.html
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2011-01-08 00:37:39 UTC
Permalink
I recently wondered why nothing in
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html is called flat. I am prone
to calling it a septimal seventh, on the road to getting "harmonic" out of
at least one name, because that collides in at least three instances with
ratios in physics between a natural and one. Manuel Op De Coul said, yeah,
but harmonic *leads* the name, so it's not 7:1. He won't budge on the other
ones, like 29:16 (mean of flat and major sevenths -- (15/8+7/4)/2=29/16),
either. It is flat, though, and if you know anything about the naming system
and prime numbers, then you know it is septimal. What you might *not* know
is that relative to many other ratios for a seventh, it is flat or narrow.
What better way to start people on the road to thinking that flat is not
necessarily out of tune?
_______
Sue likes septimal flat and blue.
Bohgosity BumaskiL
2011-01-09 15:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Subject-Was: Re: 7/4 Interval Name

' In the thread I wrote a tagline.
' Then I wrote a duet for it.
' Septimal: A musical reduced fraction that contains
' only factors of seven or less in its
' denominator and its numerator.
' http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/septimal.mp3
' CC-BY-NC-ND // Recordings are mine. Performance is not.

' Data: Part One, Part Two, Length...
' (Ignoring zeros after the first one...)
' Name of jump appears in comments between notes,
' unless it is obscure, when it is a reduced fraction.
' All names come from:
' http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html
DATA 0, 0, 1, "Jerminal Rest"
DATA 18, 36, 6, "Octave"
DATA 24, 32, 3, "Perfect Fourth"
DATA 28, 36, 2, "Septimal Major Third"
DATA 36, 32, 3, "Major Second, tails in"
DATA 28, 28, 2, "Unison"
DATA 21, 24, 6, "Septimal Whole Tone"
DATA 28, 36, 3, "Septimal Major Third"
DATA 36, 21, 6, "Septimal Major Sixth, tails in"
DATA 28, 28, 6, "Unison"
DATA 0, 0, 20, "Terminal Rest"

OPTION BASE 1
DIM TwoPi AS DOUBLE
DIM pi AS DOUBLE
DIM temp AS DOUBLE
DIM BeatsPerSecond AS DOUBLE
DIM Angle(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM Velocity(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM Acceleration(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM Phase(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM note(4) AS INTEGER
DIM LastNote(4) AS INTEGER
DIM length AS INTEGER
DIM harmonics(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM Samples AS LONG
DIM t AS LONG
DIM SampleRate AS LONG
DIM k AS INTEGER
DIM g AS INTEGER
DIM amp AS INTEGER
DIM basis AS INTEGER
DIM NumHarmonics AS INTEGER
DIM Sign(4) AS INTEGER
DIM glide AS INTEGER
DIM GlideTrim AS LONG
DIM test AS STRING
DIM TerminalAngle(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM DropAngle(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM PhaseDir(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM rationame AS STRING

PRINT
test = "0"
' I frequently flip that.
NumHarmonics = 2
BeatsPerSecond = 10#
pi = 3.141592653589793#
TwoPi = pi * 2
SampleRate = 8000

IF test = "0" THEN
OPEN "\sox\septimal.raw" FOR OUTPUT AS #4
END IF

' This is where I write a batch file that assumes where
' your FreeBasic and your Sound Exchange are.
' You might need to type it in manually the first time
' if all you hav is freebasic.
OPEN "septimal.bat" FOR OUTPUT AS #1
PRINT #1, "e:\progra~1\freebasic\fbc -lang qb d:\basic\septimal.bas"
PRINT #1, "septimal.exe"
PRINT #1, "cd \sox"
PRINT #1, "sox -c 2 -r"; SampleRate; " -sw septimal.raw septimal.wav stat"
CLOSE #1

' This maps powers of two to an Ay-sharp.
harmonics(1) = 440 / 2 ^ (1 / 12) ^ 73
harmonics(2) = harmonics(1)
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
note(k) = 0
LastNote(k) = 0
NEXT k

OPEN "con" FOR APPEND AS #2

glide = 30
100
FOR g = 1 TO 11
READ note(1), note(2), length, rationame
PRINT #2, USING "DATA ##-,##-,##"; note(1); note(2); length
' That is for feeding transpositions back into this code.
' Sometimes I experiment with different basis frequencies on the
' left and right channels, and seldom is a work finished until
' both channels hav the same basis frequency, because that makes
' it more trival and less error prone to name ratios (intervals).
' The trend for my hand calculations is to raise numbers,
' and with a little tweaking, lower numbers often work.
IF g > 0 THEN
' SOUND note(2) * 13, length * 2
END IF
IF test = "0" THEN
IF note(1) = 0 AND LastNote(1) = 0 THEN
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond
GOSUB 300
GOTO 75
END IF
IF note(1) = 0 AND LastNote(1) <> 0 THEN
GOSUB 250
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
LastNote(k) = note(k)
NEXT k
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond
GOSUB 300
GOTO 75
END IF
IF LastNote(1) = 0 AND note(1) <> 0 THEN
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
LastNote(k) = note(k)
NEXT k
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond
GOSUB 275
GOTO 75
END IF
IF note(1) <> 0 AND LastNote(1) <> 0 THEN
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond /
glide
GlideTrim = Samples
GOSUB 300
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond -
GlideTrim
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
LastNote(k) = note(k)
NEXT k
GOSUB 300
GOTO 75
END IF
END IF

75 NEXT g
CLOSE #4

END

' *Neat* Silencer -- finishes a wave like 275 starts one.
' When it reaches a peak or a trough, then it cuts amplitude in half
' and biases it by half.
250
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
temp = Angle(k) / TwoPi
Angle(k) = (temp - FIX(temp)) * TwoPi
IF Angle(k) > pi * 3 / 2 THEN
TerminalAngle(k) = pi * 3.5
PhaseDir(k) = 1
DropAngle(k) = pi * 2.5
ELSEIF Angle(k) > pi / 2 THEN
TerminalAngle(k) = pi * 2.5
PhaseDir(k) = 0
DropAngle(k) = pi * 3 / 2
ELSE
TerminalAngle(k) = pi * 3 / 2
PhaseDir(k) = -1
DropAngle(k) = pi / 2
END IF
NEXT k

260
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Phase(k) = SIN(Angle(k))
SELECT CASE PhaseDir(k)
CASE 1
IF Angle(k) >= DropAngle(k) THEN
Phase(k) = Phase(k) / 2 + .5
END IF
CASE 0
IF Angle(k) >= DropAngle(k) THEN
Phase(k) = Phase(k) / 2 - .5
END IF
CASE -1
IF Angle(k) >= DropAngle(k) THEN
Phase(k) = Phase(k) / 2 + .5
END IF
END SELECT
IF Angle(k) < TerminalAngle(k) THEN
Angle(k) = Angle(k) + Velocity(k)
ELSE
Angle(k) = TerminalAngle(k)
END IF
NEXT k
GOSUB 400

FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
IF Angle(k) < TerminalAngle(k) THEN GOTO 260
NEXT k
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Angle(k) = Angle(k) - Angle(k)
NEXT k
RETURN

275
' This starts a wave from zero, using half the amplitude, a start
' from where sin(angle) = -1, and a bias of half. This cuts
' a leading click that I can hear on some equipment with some tunes.
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Velocity(k) = TwoPi * LastNote(k) * harmonics(k) / SampleRate
Acceleration(k) = (TwoPi * note(k) * harmonics(k) / SampleRate -

Velocity(k)) / Samples
PhaseDir(k) = 1
Angle(k) = 3 / 2 * pi
NEXT k

280
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
IF PhaseDir(k) = 1 THEN
Phase(k) = SIN(Angle(k)) / 2 + .5
ELSE
Phase(k) = SIN(Angle(k))
END IF
Angle(k) = Angle(k) + Velocity(k)
Velocity(k) = Velocity(k) + Acceleration(k)
NEXT k
Samples = Samples - 1
GOSUB 400

FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
IF PhaseDir(k) = 1 THEN
Phase(k) = (Phase(k) - .5) * 2
END IF
IF Phase(k) > SIN(Angle(k)) THEN
PhaseDir(k) = -1
END IF
NEXT k

FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
IF PhaseDir(k) = 1 GOTO 280
NEXT k

300
' Calculate constants of change for write loop.
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Velocity(k) = TwoPi * LastNote(k) * harmonics(k) / SampleRate
Acceleration(k) = (TwoPi * note(k) * harmonics(k) / SampleRate -

Velocity(k)) / Samples
NEXT k

' Main write loop. Static Phases problem solved at 250.
FOR t = 1 TO Samples
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Phase(k) = SIN(Angle(k))
NEXT k

GOSUB 400

FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Angle(k) = Angle(k) + Velocity(k)
Velocity(k) = Velocity(k) + Acceleration(k)
NEXT k
NEXT t
RETURN

400
' Write a sample.
amp = CINT(Phase(1) * 32000)
PRINT #4, CHR$(amp AND 255);
PRINT #4, CHR$((amp AND 65280) / 256);

amp = CINT(Phase(2) * 32000)
PRINT #4, CHR$(amp AND 255);
PRINT #4, CHR$((amp AND 65280) / 256);
RETURN

' http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/
Brian Martin
2011-01-10 12:43:51 UTC
Permalink
WTF RU smoking ?
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
Subject-Was: Re: 7/4 Interval Name
' In the thread I wrote a tagline.
' Then I wrote a duet for it.
' Septimal: A musical reduced fraction that contains
' only factors of seven or less in its
' denominator and its numerator.
' http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/septimal.mp3
' CC-BY-NC-ND // Recordings are mine. Performance is not.
' Data: Part One, Part Two, Length...
' (Ignoring zeros after the first one...)
' Name of jump appears in comments between notes,
' unless it is obscure, when it is a reduced fraction.
' http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html
DATA 0, 0, 1, "Jerminal Rest"
DATA 18, 36, 6, "Octave"
DATA 24, 32, 3, "Perfect Fourth"
DATA 28, 36, 2, "Septimal Major Third"
DATA 36, 32, 3, "Major Second, tails in"
DATA 28, 28, 2, "Unison"
DATA 21, 24, 6, "Septimal Whole Tone"
DATA 28, 36, 3, "Septimal Major Third"
DATA 36, 21, 6, "Septimal Major Sixth, tails in"
DATA 28, 28, 6, "Unison"
DATA 0, 0, 20, "Terminal Rest"
OPTION BASE 1
DIM TwoPi AS DOUBLE
DIM pi AS DOUBLE
DIM temp AS DOUBLE
DIM BeatsPerSecond AS DOUBLE
DIM Angle(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM Velocity(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM Acceleration(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM Phase(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM note(4) AS INTEGER
DIM LastNote(4) AS INTEGER
DIM length AS INTEGER
DIM harmonics(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM Samples AS LONG
DIM t AS LONG
DIM SampleRate AS LONG
DIM k AS INTEGER
DIM g AS INTEGER
DIM amp AS INTEGER
DIM basis AS INTEGER
DIM NumHarmonics AS INTEGER
DIM Sign(4) AS INTEGER
DIM glide AS INTEGER
DIM GlideTrim AS LONG
DIM test AS STRING
DIM TerminalAngle(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM DropAngle(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM PhaseDir(4) AS DOUBLE
DIM rationame AS STRING
PRINT
test = "0"
' I frequently flip that.
NumHarmonics = 2
BeatsPerSecond = 10#
pi = 3.141592653589793#
TwoPi = pi * 2
SampleRate = 8000
IF test = "0" THEN
OPEN "\sox\septimal.raw" FOR OUTPUT AS #4
END IF
' This is where I write a batch file that assumes where
' your FreeBasic and your Sound Exchange are.
' You might need to type it in manually the first time
' if all you hav is freebasic.
OPEN "septimal.bat" FOR OUTPUT AS #1
PRINT #1, "e:\progra~1\freebasic\fbc -lang qb d:\basic\septimal.bas"
PRINT #1, "septimal.exe"
PRINT #1, "cd \sox"
PRINT #1, "sox -c 2 -r"; SampleRate; " -sw septimal.raw septimal.wav stat"
CLOSE #1
' This maps powers of two to an Ay-sharp.
harmonics(1) = 440 / 2 ^ (1 / 12) ^ 73
harmonics(2) = harmonics(1)
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
note(k) = 0
LastNote(k) = 0
NEXT k
OPEN "con" FOR APPEND AS #2
glide = 30
100
FOR g = 1 TO 11
READ note(1), note(2), length, rationame
PRINT #2, USING "DATA ##-,##-,##"; note(1); note(2); length
' That is for feeding transpositions back into this code.
' Sometimes I experiment with different basis frequencies on the
' left and right channels, and seldom is a work finished until
' both channels hav the same basis frequency, because that makes
' it more trival and less error prone to name ratios (intervals).
' The trend for my hand calculations is to raise numbers,
' and with a little tweaking, lower numbers often work.
IF g> 0 THEN
' SOUND note(2) * 13, length * 2
END IF
IF test = "0" THEN
IF note(1) = 0 AND LastNote(1) = 0 THEN
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond
GOSUB 300
GOTO 75
END IF
IF note(1) = 0 AND LastNote(1)<> 0 THEN
GOSUB 250
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
LastNote(k) = note(k)
NEXT k
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond
GOSUB 300
GOTO 75
END IF
IF LastNote(1) = 0 AND note(1)<> 0 THEN
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
LastNote(k) = note(k)
NEXT k
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond
GOSUB 275
GOTO 75
END IF
IF note(1)<> 0 AND LastNote(1)<> 0 THEN
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond /
glide
GlideTrim = Samples
GOSUB 300
Samples = SampleRate * length / BeatsPerSecond -
GlideTrim
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
LastNote(k) = note(k)
NEXT k
GOSUB 300
GOTO 75
END IF
END IF
75 NEXT g
CLOSE #4
END
' *Neat* Silencer -- finishes a wave like 275 starts one.
' When it reaches a peak or a trough, then it cuts amplitude in half
' and biases it by half.
250
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
temp = Angle(k) / TwoPi
Angle(k) = (temp - FIX(temp)) * TwoPi
IF Angle(k)> pi * 3 / 2 THEN
TerminalAngle(k) = pi * 3.5
PhaseDir(k) = 1
DropAngle(k) = pi * 2.5
ELSEIF Angle(k)> pi / 2 THEN
TerminalAngle(k) = pi * 2.5
PhaseDir(k) = 0
DropAngle(k) = pi * 3 / 2
ELSE
TerminalAngle(k) = pi * 3 / 2
PhaseDir(k) = -1
DropAngle(k) = pi / 2
END IF
NEXT k
260
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Phase(k) = SIN(Angle(k))
SELECT CASE PhaseDir(k)
CASE 1
IF Angle(k)>= DropAngle(k) THEN
Phase(k) = Phase(k) / 2 + .5
END IF
CASE 0
IF Angle(k)>= DropAngle(k) THEN
Phase(k) = Phase(k) / 2 - .5
END IF
CASE -1
IF Angle(k)>= DropAngle(k) THEN
Phase(k) = Phase(k) / 2 + .5
END IF
END SELECT
IF Angle(k)< TerminalAngle(k) THEN
Angle(k) = Angle(k) + Velocity(k)
ELSE
Angle(k) = TerminalAngle(k)
END IF
NEXT k
GOSUB 400
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
IF Angle(k)< TerminalAngle(k) THEN GOTO 260
NEXT k
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Angle(k) = Angle(k) - Angle(k)
NEXT k
RETURN
275
' This starts a wave from zero, using half the amplitude, a start
' from where sin(angle) = -1, and a bias of half. This cuts
' a leading click that I can hear on some equipment with some tunes.
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Velocity(k) = TwoPi * LastNote(k) * harmonics(k) / SampleRate
Acceleration(k) = (TwoPi * note(k) * harmonics(k) / SampleRate -
Velocity(k)) / Samples
PhaseDir(k) = 1
Angle(k) = 3 / 2 * pi
NEXT k
280
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
IF PhaseDir(k) = 1 THEN
Phase(k) = SIN(Angle(k)) / 2 + .5
ELSE
Phase(k) = SIN(Angle(k))
END IF
Angle(k) = Angle(k) + Velocity(k)
Velocity(k) = Velocity(k) + Acceleration(k)
NEXT k
Samples = Samples - 1
GOSUB 400
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
IF PhaseDir(k) = 1 THEN
Phase(k) = (Phase(k) - .5) * 2
END IF
IF Phase(k)> SIN(Angle(k)) THEN
PhaseDir(k) = -1
END IF
NEXT k
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
IF PhaseDir(k) = 1 GOTO 280
NEXT k
300
' Calculate constants of change for write loop.
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Velocity(k) = TwoPi * LastNote(k) * harmonics(k) / SampleRate
Acceleration(k) = (TwoPi * note(k) * harmonics(k) / SampleRate -
Velocity(k)) / Samples
NEXT k
' Main write loop. Static Phases problem solved at 250.
FOR t = 1 TO Samples
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Phase(k) = SIN(Angle(k))
NEXT k
GOSUB 400
FOR k = 1 TO NumHarmonics
Angle(k) = Angle(k) + Velocity(k)
Velocity(k) = Velocity(k) + Acceleration(k)
NEXT k
NEXT t
RETURN
400
' Write a sample.
amp = CINT(Phase(1) * 32000)
PRINT #4, CHR$(amp AND 255);
PRINT #4, CHR$((amp AND 65280) / 256);
amp = CINT(Phase(2) * 32000)
PRINT #4, CHR$(amp AND 255);
PRINT #4, CHR$((amp AND 65280) / 256);
RETURN
' http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/Sound/
J.B. Wood
2011-01-10 12:01:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bohgosity BumaskiL
I recently wondered why nothing in
http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html is called flat. I am prone
to calling it a septimal seventh, on the road to getting "harmonic" out of
at least one name, because that collides in at least three instances with
ratios in physics between a natural and one. Manuel Op De Coul said, yeah,
but harmonic *leads* the name, so it's not 7:1. He won't budge on the other
ones, like 29:16 (mean of flat and major sevenths -- (15/8+7/4)/2=29/16),
either. It is flat, though, and if you know anything about the naming system
and prime numbers, then you know it is septimal. What you might *not* know
is that relative to many other ratios for a seventh, it is flat or narrow.
What better way to start people on the road to thinking that flat is not
necessarily out of tune?
_______
Sue likes septimal flat and blue.
Hello, and I started this thread to consider naming conventions for the
subject interval. I think the issue here is one of notation not
specifically tuning and the acoustics associated with it. With 12-TET
the intervals C-Bb and C-A# are enharmonic and the same size. In other
tunings C-Bb may be wider or narrower than C-A#. But music notation
doesn't care what the tuning system is. C-Bb is always a minor 7th;
C-A# is always an augmented 6th.

Having said all that, in deciding whether to designate the 7/4 interval
as minor, augmented or something else, one might want to examine what an
interval close to 7/4 might be called in a particular tuning system
(that doesn't contain a 7/4 pitch ratio interval). If that system is
12-TET, then we could probably call the 7/4 either a m7 or A6. But then
if we choose another tuning/temperament the 7/4 would be called...Do you
see the problem here? Sincerely,
--
John Wood (Code 5520) e-mail: ***@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
Loading...