- --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>

right, in order to get rid of the oversharp wolfs in W's original

>

> Comments below!

>

> > a'440Hz a220 A110

> > e'330 e165

> > b'495

> > 1485/1484 f#"742 f#'371

>

> Instead of 496 and 372. This avoids having a wide e-b fifth and is

> better for G major and D major.

stringlength numbers, alike in his famous #3 the 'quaternarius'

has only 4 flattend and 8 pure 5ths:

A E B>F# C# G# Eb Bb F C>G>D>A

>

...flattend than a pure 5th: 3/2.

> > 1113/1112 c#"556 c#'278 c#139

> > 417/416 g#208 G#104

> > eb'312 eb156 Eb78

> > bb'468 bb234 Bb117

> > f'351

> > 1053/1052 c"526 c'263/262 131

> > g'393/392 196 98 49=7*7

>

> I don't think this is so good, you have C-G tempered by 262/263

> which is about 1/3 comma...

>

So far about that strongest detuned 5th C>G.

Consider accordingly the belonging 3rd C>E in the major-chord C>E>G:

with compareable sharpness:

e165 e'330 e"660 e'"1330/1315=5*c"263

shortening by common factor 5 yiels

a tempering of C>E about 264/265,

so that the C-major chord consists in

C(1/1)-E*(265/264)-G*(262/263)

or

4:(5*(265/264)):(6*262/263)

instead barely 4:5:6 without the idea of tempering

3rds and 5ths in the same range of magintude.

Many 'experts' do recommend to sharpen the 3rds about the amount in

amplitude alike the corresponding 5ths become flattened, so that the

beatings of 3rds and 5ths beat almost the same in reverse directions.

Skilled organ-builders use that effect in order to demonstrate

that their robust organs survive even such impressive resonances.

It appears that already

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolt_Schlick

knew that old well-known tuning-trick/method in his instructions.

> Better to have 315/350 f'350 f175 and 525/524 c''524 c262 131 ... ?

Good idea, if you intend to stay nearer to W's original version,

when somehow aiming to approximate "ET" however.

>

makes that only sense according the above demands

> Then C-G is pure and

when C-E is also pure chosen?

>

Correction of: !septenarius440Hz.scl

> >

> > 351/263 ! F# [should be 271] for Gene: 371 is the correct pitch.

The pure middle c' in reference to a'=440Hz becomes in the just case

> or:

>

> !septenarius440Hzmk2.scl

> !

> TD's septenarius @ middle c'=262Hz or a'=440Hz

> !

> 12

> !

> 278/262 ! C# short 138/131

> 294/262 ! D short 147/131

> 312/262 ! Eb short 156/131

> 330/262 ! E short 165/131

> 350/262 ! F short 175/131

> 371/262 ! F#

> 393/262 ! G

> 416/262 ! G# 208/131

> 440/262 ! A 220/131

> 468/262 ! Bb 234/131

> 495/262 ! B

> 2/1

440Hz*3/5 = 264Hz. Hence i do prefer the nearer 263Hz instead

yours lower 262Hz, which appears just a little bit to flat lowered

in my personal taste, especially when having just intonation

in mind or ear instead the virtual "et".

Most professional and skilled tuners do to keep

the frequent keys with few accidentials somehow purer than

the less used keys with many accidentials, so that the

strange keys got more pythagorean 3rds, by purer

or even just pure 5ths inbetween them.

>

those irrational numbers are far to complicated for solving the

> (cf. 12ET frequencies: 261.6, 277.2, 293.7, 311.1, 329.6, 349.2,

> 370.0, 392.0, 415.3, 440.0, 466.2, 493.9 ...)

problem. Who needs the advanced precision of 4 decimal digits

in the octave from c' to c"?

But if you want to approach "et" whatsoever, then 262 would be the

better choice for converging "et" as the above approximation suggest.

>

I.m.o: the nearer one draws to approach "et",

> Can one use the nice ratio 63/50 = 1.26 to build a 'septenarian' >near-

> equal tuning?

the most frequently used 3rds get to much worse detuned

Luckily nobody can tune irrational intervals in practice,

so that the worsest case: "et" remains barely a theoretically fiction,

excluded from real implementation on a real sounding instrument.

Simply try out how well can you reproduce by yours ears:

on the one hand:

a pure 5th ratio 3:2=1.5 ~702cents

and on the other hand:

sqrt(2) = 600 Cent "et"-tritous, that's geometrically interpreted:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagorassConstant.html

Experimental result:

There is no psychoacusitcally evidence for departening

the ratio of a 5th 3:2 for the benefit of sqrt(2) ET-tritone.

Quoting Herrmann Helmholtz: "The ear prefers simple ratios."

> eg Eb-G = 150:189 ...

But by that procedure one does also loose to much of the 'Baroque'

> via Eb150 Bb225 (675) F337 (1011) C505 (504) G378=189

key-characteristics.

http://www.societymusictheory.org/mto/issues/mto.95.1.4/mto.95.1.4.code.html

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonartencharakter>

hmm, is it still apt to call that 'baroque'-style?

> then continue:

> ... (567) D283 (849) A424=212 (636) E635 (634) B951 (2853/2848)

> F#356=178 C#267 (801) G#400 Eb300

>

> seems to work nicely at late Baroque pitch levels - only three pure

> fifths between Eb-Bb, G#-Eb, F#-C#.

>

As far as i understood late "Baroque" post-meantone instructions:

There i found a tendency to keep the 5ths inbetween the accidentials

F#-C#-G#-Eb-Bb

purer more pure (within the upper black keys on the piano)

than in the ordinary F-C-G-D-A-E-B: that got generally more tempering.

In extreme form i do start from my prototype model.

The procedure consists in a chain of 11 almost pure 5ths,

that contains the JI pitches, but also schismic Pythagorean-enharmonics:

Here the chain

F-A-C-E-G-B-D

are all 3 pure major 4:5:6 chords

in exact beatless just proportions:

A 440. 220 110 55

E 165

B 495.

F# 1485

4455 C# 4454 2227

6681 G# 6680 3340 1670 835

2505 Eb 2504 1252 626 313.

Bb 939

2817 F 2816 1408 704 352. 176 88 44 22 11

C 33

G 99

D 297. / 296 148 74 37

111 A 110 55

A E B F#~C#~G#~Eb Bb~F C G D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

The schisma 32805/32768=5*3^8/2^15=

(4455/4454)(6681/6680)(2505/2504)(2817/2816)

is tempered out by the subdivsion in to that

product of 4 superparticular factors.

Respectively the

SC=81/80=(297/296)(111/110) into 2 parts at one @ D>A 40:27

Rearranging same pitches in ascending order yields:

C' 264Hz middle-C

C# 278.375

D' 297

Eb 313

E' 330

F' 352

F# 371.25

G' 396

G# 417.5

A' 440Hz reference pitch

Bb 469.5

B' 495

C" 528

so far about the 11 other frquencies that i percieve instantly

also in mind immediatley when hearing a 440Hz tuning-fork by ear,

or simpy when imagening that pitch-levels enwraped when reading

musical scores in any fitting tuning.

schismatic_just440Hz.scl

!

sparschuh's-schisma-subdivision(4455/4454)(6681/6680)(2505/2504)(2817/2816)

!

2227/2112 ! C#

9/8 ! D

313/264 ! Eb

5/4 ! E

4/3 ! F

45/32 ! F#

3/2 ! G

835/528 ! G#

5/3 ! A=440Hz

313/176 ! Bb

15/8 ! B

2/1

But, how about that almost similar alternative one at the moment on my

piano?

A 440. 220 110

330 E 329.

B 987

2961 F# 2960 1480 740 370. 185

C# 555

1665 G# 1664 832 416. 208 104 52 26 13

Eb 39

Bb 117

F 351.

1053 C 1052 526 263.

789 G 788 394. 197

591 D 590 285./284 147

441 A 440. (or 3*285=885 A 880 440.)

with strongest tempering @ D>A: 885/880=(285/284)(441/440)=177/176

but still less than SC^(1/2) ~161/160 or ~162/161,

hence rather tolerable than

the ancient Erlangen-monochord or Kirnberger#1,

that charge a full SC on D>A alike the above 'schismatic_just.scl'.

So far my reccomendation for those who prefer to stay nearer at JI

than to the i.m.o. over-detuned "ET", that i do meanwhile consider as

outdated intuneable fiction.

sparschuh_gothic_style440Hz.scl

!

12

!

555/526 ! C# 277.5 Hz

285/263 ! D

312/263 ! Eb

329/263 ! E

351/263 ! F

370/263 ! F#

394/263 ! G

416/263 ! G#

440/263 ! A reference-pitch 440Hz

468/263 ! Bb

987/526 ! B 493.5 Hz

2/1

on the keys

+-----------

| C 263 middle-C

+--|277.5=C#

| D 285

+--|312=Eb

| E 329

+-----------

| F 351

+--|370=F#

| G 394

+--|416=G#

| A 440

+--|468=Bb

| B 493.5

+-----------

| C'526

&ct.

If you dont't like any of that, it's up to you to create yours own

personal version, according yours private preferences.

A.S. - --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>

agreed, hence i do return to W's original 131.

> > 1113/1112 c#"556 c#'278 c#139

> > 417/416 g#208 G#104

> > eb'312 eb156 Eb78

> > bb'468 bb234 Bb117

> > f'351

> > 1053/1052 c"526 c'263/262 131

> > g'393/392 196 98 49=7*7

>

> I don't think this is so good, you have C-G tempered by 262/263

> which

> is about 1/3 comma...

>

also right, hence so the resulting ratios get even more simple:

> Better to have 315/350 f'350 f175 and 525/524 c''524 c262 131 ... ?

>

The calculations benefit from that by less computational0 overhead.

Follow the classical way:

start traditional @ pitch-class GAMMA=G alike in:

http://www.celestialmonochord.org/log/images/celestial_monochord.jpg

GG 49 := 7*7 (GAMMA-ut, the empty string in the picture)

D 147

3D441 > a'440 a220 A110 AA55Hz=the AA-string of a double-bass

e 165

3e495 > b'494 b247

3b741 > f#"740 f#'370 f#185

c# "555

3c#"1665 > g#"'1664 g#"832 g#'416 g#208 G#104 GG#52 GGG#26 GGGG#13

EEb 39

Bb 117

3Bb351 > f'350 f175

3f525 > c"524 c'263 c131

3c393 > g'392 g196 G98 GG49=7^2 returned

!septenarius_GG49Hz.scl

sparschuh's version @ middle-c'=262Hz or a'=440Hz

12

!absolute pitches relativ to c=131 Hz

555/524 ! c# 138.75 Hz

147/131 ! d

156/131 ! eb

165/131 ! e

175/131 ! f

185/131 ! f#

196/131 ! g

208/131 ! g#

220/131 ! a 440Hz/2

234/131 ! bb

247/131 ! b

2/1

That results on my old piano in the first/lowest octave:

AAA 27.5 Hz lowest pitch, on the first white key on the left side

BBBb29.25 next upper black key

BBB 30.875 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bass "at~30.87 hertz"..

CC_ 32.875

CC# 34.6875 := c"555/16

DD_ 36.75

EEb 39 := GGGG#13Hz*3

EE_ 41.25 ..."E1 (on standard four-string basses) at ~41.20 Hz

FF_ 43.75

FF# 46.25

GG_ 49 := 7*7 Werckmeister's/Scheibler's initial septimal choice

GG# 52 = GGGG#13Hz*4

AA_ 55 = 440Hz/8 ; 3 octaves below Scheibler's choice

http://mmd.foxtail.com/Tech/jorgensen.html

#133: "Johann Heinrich Scheibler's metronome method of 1836"

http://www.41hz.com

"41 Hz is the frequency of the low E string on a double bass or an

electric bass." if it has none additional 5th string

for midi(B0)=BBB 30.875 Hz an 2nd above AAA 27.5 Hz,

the lowest A on the piano, without attending or even careing

"string-imharmonicty"

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JASMAN0000760000S1000S22000004&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Consider the 3rds qualities in violins empty sting G-D-A-E block order:

1: G > B > Eb> G

2: D > F#> Bb> D

3: A > C#> F > A

4: E > G#> C > E

1: G > B > Eb > G.

absolute analysis:

GG 49.

5*49 = 245 < b'247 < 248 124 62 31

5*31 = 155 < eb156 Eb78 EEb39

5*39 = 195 < g196 G98 GG7*7.

relative diesis 128/125 subpartition:

G 123.5/122.5 B 96/95 Eb 196/195 G

G ~14.1 cents B ~18.1 Eb ~ 8.86c G

2: D > F# > Bb > D.

abs:

d147. < 148 74 37

5*37 = f#185 < 186 93

5*31*3=3*155 < 156*3 78*3 39*3 = Bb117

5*39*3=3*195 < 196*3 98*3 49*3 = d147.

rel:

D 148/147 F# (1/9+85)/(84+1/9) Bb 196/195 D

D ~ 11.4c F# ~ 20.5 cents Bb ~ 8.86cents D

3: A > C# > F > A.

abs:

AA55. A110 < 111 = 37*3

5*111= c#"555 = 5*111 < 112*5 56*5 28*5 14*5 7*5

5*35 = f175 < 176 88 44 22 11

5*11 = AA55.

rel:

A 111/110 C# 112/111 F 176/175 A ; with all 3 factors superparticular

A ~ 15.7c C# ~ 15.5c F ~ 9.86c A

4: E > G#> C > E.

abs:

e165. < 166 83

5*83 = 415 < g#'416 g#208 G#104 GG#52 GGG#26 GGGG#13 §§

5*13 = 65 130 < c131 < 132 66 33

5*33 = e165.

rel:

E (6/7+118)/(117+6/7) G# 131/130 C 132/131 E

E ~ 14.6 cents ~ G# ~ 13.3 cents C ~ 13.2c E

§§ GGGG# 13 Hz has negative "midi"-index G#_-1,

which midi-keyboard supports negative key indices?

Summary:

3rds martix in "Cents"

5ths in top>down order

3rds in left>right direction respectively:

1: G 14.1 B_ 18.1 Eb 8.86 G

2: D 11.4 F# 20.5 Bb 8.86 D

3: A 15.7 C# 15.5 F_ 9.86 A

4: E 14.6 G# 13.3 C_ 13.2 E

Conversely "ET" detunes all 3rds about the same amount:

(128/125)^(1/3) = ~13.7Cents or ~127/126,

Attend that: the "septenarius" fits therefore better than ET to

horns and trumpets in Eb,Bb & F, with inherent natural

3rds Eb>G, Bb>D, & F>A that turn out less than 10Cents out of tune

in the septenarius case.

> (cf. 12ET frequencies: 261.6, 277.2, 293.7, 311.1, 329.6, 349.2,

In the "ET" case, it is difficult to resolve the

> 370.0, 392.0, 415.3, 440.0, 466.2, 493.9 ...)

septenarian root-factors above alike:

11,13,31,37 & 83 below the well known 3,5 & 7 limits.>

on the one hand is:

> Can one use the nice ratio 63/50 = 1.26 to build a 'septenarian' >near-

> equal tuning?

(63/50)(4/5)=126/125

but but on the other side

the diesis 128/125=(128/127)(127/126)(126/125)

contains 3 factors.

hence:

(63/50)^3 = 2.000376... > 2/1

overstretched octave

or as superparticular ratio:

((63/50)^3)/2= 250047/250000=(7/47+5320)/(5319+7/47)

~1/2 per mille

but a better approximation of the octave delivers 127/126

the factor in the middle:

((5 / 4) * (127 / 126))^3 = ~1.99999802............

> eg Eb-G = 150:189 ...

that is expanded:

> via Eb150 Bb225 (675) F337 (1011) C505 (504) G378=189

>

> then continue:

> ... (567) D283 (849) A424=212 (636) E635 (634) B951 (2853/2848)

> F#356=178 C#267 (801) G#400 Eb300

>

> seems to work nicely at late Baroque pitch levels - only three pure

> fifths between Eb-Bb, G#-Eb, F#-C#.

>

A 424 212

3A636 > E635 > 634 317

B951 > 950 475

3*475=1425 > F#1424 712 356 178 89

C# 267

801 > G# 800 400 200 100 50 25 Werckmeister's tief-Cammerthon 400Hz

Eb 75

Bb 225

675 > F 674 337

1011 > C 1050 505 > 504 252 126 63

G 189

567 > D 566 283

849 > A 848 424

recombining that 5ths-circle in ascending ordered pitches yields:

C 252.5 Hz middle_C

C#267

D 283

Eb300

E 317.5 or better 317?

F 337

F#356

G 378

G#400 Beekman's, Descartes's, Mersenne's & Sauveur's standard-pitch

A 424

Bb450

B 475.5 or better 475?

C'505

T.D. remarked already in his numbers inbetween:

>B951 (2853/2848)

that there appears an unsatisfactory irregular gap:

> F#356

of 2853/2848 = 570.6/569.6 = (951/950)(1425/1424)

induced by the choice of

E 635 > 634 317 instead

635 > E 634 317

That results in the above none-integral superparticular ratio bug.

Hence i do suggest to replace

by the tiny changes

1: E 635-->>>634

2: B 951-->>>950

in order to fix the bug.

so that now all 5th-tempering steps become integral superparticular

ratios, without any exception:

A 424 212 106

3A=318 E 317 instead formerly 317.5

3E=951 B 950 475 instead formerly 951 475.5

3B=1425 F# 1424 712 356 178 89

&ct.

the rest of the circle remains unchanged.

Is that ok?

Analysis of the:

3rds sharpness, -how much wider than 5/4-

per diesis subpartition into superparticular factors,

so that the product of 3 tempered 5ths results an octave

in each of the 4 blocks:

1: G > B > Eb > G.

abs:

G378. 189 > 190 95

5*95 = B 475 < 480 240 120 60 30 15

5*15 = Eb75

5*75 = 3*125 < 126*3 = G378.

rel. 2^7/5^3=128/125=

G 190/189 B 160/159 Eb 126/125 G remember (63/50)(4/5)=126/125

?or formerly in the original version:

?G378. 189 > 190 95

?5*95 = 475 950 < B951 < 960 480 240 120 60 30 15

?......

?rel. 2^7/5^3=128/125=

?G (190/189)(951/950) B 320/317=(2/3+106)/(105+2/3) Eb 126/125 G

That appears i.m.o. much more complicated than my suggested change.

2: D > F# > Bb > D.

abs:

D283. < 284 142 71

5* 71 = 355 < F#356 178 89 < 90 45

5* 45 = Bb225 < 226 113

5*113 = 565 < D556 283.

rel. 128/125=

D (284/283)(356/355) F# 90/89 Bb (226/225)(556/565) D

3: A > C# > F > A.

abs:

A424. 212 106 53

5* 53 = 265 < C#267 < 268 134 67

5* 67 = 335 < F 337 < 338 169

5*169 = 845 < A 848 424.

rel: 128/125=

A 133.5/123.5 C# (268/267)(168.5/166.5) F >>>>>> F (338/337)((2/3+282)/(281+2/3)) A

4: E > G# > C > E.

E 317. < 320 160 80 40 20

5* 20 = G#100 < 101

5*101 = C 505 < 506 253

5*253 = 1265 < E 1268 634 317.

rel: 128/125=

E (2/3+106)/(105+2/3) G# 101/100 C (506/505)/(422.666.../421.666...) E

?or formerly

?E 635? > 640 320 .....

?....&ct. alike above...

?....

?5*253 =1265 < 1270 635?

try to find out similar improvements in order to reduce the ratios

to less complicated proportions

have a lot of fun in whatever tuning you do prefer

A.S.