Browse Groups

• ... That s made by construction in 5ths: C = 90 45 G = 3C = 135 D: (3G=405) 404 202 101 A: (3D=303) 302 151 E: (3A=453) 452 226 113 B: (3e=339) 338 169
Message 1 of 63 , Apr 9, 2008
View Source
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle Aho" <kalleaho@...> wrote:

> > > > I think it is
> > > > 90:95:101:107:113:120:127:135:143:151:160:169:180

That's made by construction in 5ths:
C = 90 45
G = 3C = 135
D: (3G=405) > 404 202 101
A: (3D=303)> 302 151
E: (3A=453) > 452 226 113
B: (3e=339) > 338 169
F# (3B=507) < 508 254 127 attend the broade layperson's dog-5th
C# (3F#=381) > 380 190 95
G# (3C#=285) < 286 143 another even worser wide dog-5th
Eb (3G#=429) > 428 214 107
Bb (3Eb=321) > 320 160 80 40
F = 3Bb = 120 60 30 15
C = 3F = 45 cycle closed

>... there is the wide fifth 143/95 which is tempered by 286/285,
that sound none well, but is still only good,
if you really intend there an 'open' 5th alike in meantonics.
> > >
> > > Noting that 285=3*95, I think the smallest base number that
allows all
> > > fifths to be tempered less than 321/320 will turn out to be over
107.
> >
> > 125:132:140:148:157:167:176:187:198:210:222:235:250
>
in 5ths cycle:
C 125
G (375) > 374 187
D (561) > 560 280 140 70
A 210 105
E (315) > 314 157
B (471) > 470 235
F# (1175) < 1184 592 148 74 37 even worser wide than the above ex.
C# 222 111
G# (333) < 334 167 another problematic wide 5th
D# (501) > 500 250 125

in order to fix such ugly broade-5th bugs, just consult my:
http://www.strukturbildung.de/Andreas.Sparschuh/Mainz_1999.jpg
without such dog-5ths defects,
as found in some 'esotheric' reinterpretations,
that do not appear in my 1999 original 'discovery' version.

> Wait! There's even better one
> 101:107:113:120:127:135:143:151:160:169:180:191:202
> No fifth differs more than 1/4 pythagorean comma from just.

That's expanded:
C: 101
G: (303) > 302 151
D: (453) > 452 226 113
A: (339) > 338 169
E: (507) < 508 254 127 at least barely only one broade 5th
B: (381) > 382 191
F# (573) > 572 286 143
C# (429) > 428 214 107
G# (312) > 320 160 80 40 20 10 5
Eb 15
Bb 45
F: 135
C: (405) > 404 202 101
>
> And with this
>
> 131:139:147:156:165:175:185:196:208:220:234:247:262
> No fifth differs more than 321/320 from just.
>
C 131
G (393) > 392 196 98 49
D 147
A (441) > 440 220 110 55
E 165
B (495) > 494 247
F# (741) > 740 370 185 {Proposal in order to get rid of the dog}
C# (555) < 556 278 139 { here you'd better let 555 unchanged }
G# (417) > 416 ... 13 {...832 1664 < (1665 = 3*555) }
Eb 39
Bb 117
F: (351) > 350 175 instead W's choice 176=11*2^4
C: (525) > 524 262 131

{considering that little change converts your's originally
'open'-tuning into an
"well"-temperament in the sense of W. & Bach, without the dog}

Attend:
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~tdent/septenarius.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werckmeister_temperament#Werckmeister_IV_.28VI.29:_the_Septenarius_tunings

A.S.
• ... Hi George, ... in deed, even that *.scl-file contained some unfixed bug. ... Many thanks again for that repair. ... when considering more evaluated digits,
Message 63 of 63 , May 8, 2008
View Source
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:

Hi George,
> > epimoric decomposition
> >
> > F 1058:1059 C 528:529 G 296/297 D 295/296 A 294/295 E 3968:3969 B
> > B F# C# G# Eb 7532:7533 Bb 5648:5649 F
> >
> >Cents approximation,
>
> >F~ -1.635 ~C~ -3.275 ~G~ -5.839 ~D~ -5.859 ~A~ -5.879 ~E~ -0.436 ~B
> > B F# C# G# Eb~ -0.2298 ~Bb~ -0.306 ~F
> >
>
> I believe there are still a few mistakes.
in deed, even that *.scl-file contained some unfixed bug.

> From the sizes of the
> fifths you give, I think that perhaps you meant this:
>
Now -as far as i can see- those ratios appearto be correct:
> 558/529 ! C#
> 592/529 ! D
> 2511/2116 ! Eb = 627.75/529
> 1323/1058 ! E = 661.5/529
> 706/529 ! F
> 744/529 ! F#
> 792/529 ! G
> 837/529 ! G#
> 875/523 ! A = 442.5Hz*2 absolute a4
> 1883/1058 ! Bb = 941.5/529
> 992/529 ! B
>
Many thanks again for that repair.

> This will result in:
when considering more evaluated digits,
as calculated by "Google"s arithmetics, which yields:

> F~ -1.636 ~C
(1 200 * ln(1 058 / 1 059)) / ln(2) = ~-1.63555425...

> ~C~ -3.276 ~G
(1 200 * ln(528 / 529)) / ln(2) = ~-3.27575131...

>~G~ -5.839 ~D
(1 200 * ln(296 / 297)) / ln(2) = ~-5.83890621...
arises that deviation here due to your's rounding procedere?

~D~ -5.784 ~A
1 200 * ln(295 / 296)) / ln(2) = ~-5.85866566...
arises that deviation here due to your's rounding procedere?

~A~ -5.953 ~E
(1 200 * ln(294 / 295)) / ln(2) = ~-5.8785593...

same question as for D~A?
Or what else could be the reason for the tiny
discrepancy amounting about tiny 1/10 Cents
inbetween ours calculations of the relative deviations
in the tempered 5ths flatnesses?

~E~ -0.436 ~B
(1 200 * ln(3 968 / 3 969)) / ln(2) = ~-0.436243936...

> B F# C# G# all just pure 5ths

Eb~ -0.2298 ~Bb
(1 200 * ln(7 532 / 7 533)) / ln(2) = ~-0.229835254...

Bb~ -0.306 ~F
(1 200 * ln(5 648 / 5 649)) / ln(2) = ~-0.306494477...

at least we both do agree now in all others 5ths except D~A~E.

What do you think about that well-temperement,
with an almost JI the C-major chord:

C:E:G = 4 : 5*(2646/2645) : 6*(529/528)

?

Yours Sincerely
Andreas
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.