Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Browse Groups

• ## preferred Re: absoute-pitch... @ a'=445Hz? on the violin & piano

(63)
• NextPrevious
• ... at the moment i do prefer from Werckmeister s septenarian comma versus the SC 81/80 = (99/98)*(441/440) divided into 3 epimoric subparts: 99/98 =
Message 1 of 63 , Apr 25, 2008
View Source
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@...> wrote:
>
> A=440 is my preference. (I see no reason why the frequencies of all
> of the pitches should be exact integers.) With most well-
> temperaments C will be higher in pitch than in 12-equal with A=440;
> for the rationalized Dent-Young-Neidhardt C will be ~262.5 Hz.
>
at the moment i do prefer
from Werckmeister's septenarian comma versus the SC

81/80 = (99/98)*(441/440)

divided into 3 epimoric subparts:

99/98 = (297/296)*(296/295)*(295/294)

tempering the 5ths G-D-A-E flattend by the corresponding amounts:

G 296/297 D 295/296 A 294/295 E

yielding on the violin empty stings the absolute pitches:

g3: 198 cps = 99*2 := 220*(9/10) a minor-tone below a3=440Hz/2
d4: 296
a4: 442.5 := 885/2
e5: 631.5 := 1323/2

as subset of the tuning procedere in 5ths on my piano:

C: 523Hz (>522 264 132 66 33) 'tenoor-C'
G: 99 (((> 98 49=7*7 overtaken from Werckmeister's "septenarius")))
D: (297>) 296 (>295 (>294 147=49*3)
A: 885 (>882 441=49*9)
E: 1323 = 49*27
B: (49*81 = 3969>) 3968 ... 496...31 through all 7 'B's on the keys
F# 93
C# 279 a semitone above 'middle-C'
G# 837
Eb 2511
Bb (7533>) 7532 3716 1883
F: (5649>) 5648 2824 1412 706 353
C: (1059>) 1058 529 = 23^2 cycle returend back to the above 'tenor-C'

!sparschuhPiano.scl
!
from Andreas Sparschuh's violin strings G 296/297 D 295/296 A 294/295
12
!
558/523 ! C#
598/523 ! D
628/523 ! Eb
1323/1058 ! E = 661.5/523
706/523 ! F
724/523 ! F#
792/523 ! G
837/523 ! G#
885/523 ! A absolute 442.5Hz
1883/1058 ! Bb = 941.5/523
992/523 ! B
2/1
!

have a lot of fun with that
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,
> > about the amounts:
>
> >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.