Article 13976 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!ifi.uio.no!nntp.uio.no!trane.uninett.no!news.eunet.no!nuug!news.eunet.fi!news.funet.fi!news.tele.fi!uunet!spool.mu.edu!caen!destroyer!newsrelay.iastate.edu!dunix.drake.edu!acad.drake.edu!seh003 From: seh003@acad.drake.edu (A thousand angers have kept me alive) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: pitch frequencies needed Message-ID: <1993Sep9.213513.1@acad.drake.edu> Date: 10 Sep 93 03:35:13 GMT References: <1993Sep9.212018.28271@husc1.harvard.edu> Sender: news@dunix.drake.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA Lines: 24 Nntp-Posting-Host: acad.drake.edu In article <1993Sep9.212018.28271@husc1.harvard.edu>, jhurley@husc1.harvard.edu writes: > Does anyone have a convienient list of the pitches in any octave and > their frequencies? To my surprise, standard encyclopedias don't have > this, and I haven't been able to check out a music-physics book yet. > > Thanks, > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > John Hurley > > Everything I say is backed by the full social power of Harvard > University. A is 440 to go up a semi-tone multiply by 2^(1/12) (A# is ~466.164) The next octave is double the frequency (next A is 880) A fifth up is 3/2 the frequency (E above A440 is 660) You can compute anything from that...(hmm, my editor is doing weird things). Hope this helps. -Stephen Article 13992 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!mach1!tull1547 From: tull1547@mach1.wlu.ca (David Tully u) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: pitch frequencies needed Message-ID: Date: 10 Sep 93 15:49:35 GMT References: <1993Sep9.212018.28271@husc1.harvard.edu> Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University Lines: 61 In article <1993Sep9.212018.28271@husc1.harvard.edu> jhurley@husc1.harvard.edu writes: >Does anyone have a convienient list of the pitches in any octave and >their frequencies? To my surprise, standard encyclopedias don't have >this, and I haven't been able to check out a music-physics book yet. > >Thanks, > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >John Hurley > >Everything I say is backed by the full social power of Harvard >University. John, here is a list of Frequencies of notes in the tempered scale: C0 16.352 C3 130.81 C6 1046.5 17.324 138.59 1108.7 D0 18.354 D3 146.83 D6 1174.7 19.445 155.56 1244.5 E0 20.602 E3 164.81 E6 1318.5 F0 21.827 F3 174.61 F6 1396.9 23.125 185.00 1480.0 G0 24.500 G3 196.00 G6 1568.0 25.957 207.65 1661.2 A0 27.500 A3 220.0 A6 1760.0 29.135 233.08 1864.7 B0 30.868 B3 246.94 B6 1975.5 -------------------------------------------------------------- C1 32.703 C4 261.63 C7 2093.0 34.648 277.18 2217.5 D1 36.708 D4 293.66 D7 2349.3 38.891 311.13 2489.0 E1 41.203 E4 329.63 E7 2637.0 F1 43.654 F4 349.23 F7 2793.8 46.249 369.99 2960.0 G1 48.999 G4 392.00 G7 3136.0 51.913 415.30 3322.4 A1 55.000 A4 440.00 A7 3520.0 58.270 466.16 3729.3 B1 61.735 B4 493.88 B7 3951.1 -------------------------------------------------------------- C2 65.406 C5 523.25 C8 4186.0 69.296 554.37 4434.9 D2 73.416 D5 587.33 D8 4698.6 77.782 622.25 4978.0 E2 82.407 E5 659.26 E8 5274.0 F2 87.307 F5 698.46 F8 5587.7 92.499 739.99 5919.9 G2 97.999 G5 783.99 G8 6271.9 103.83 830.61 6644.9 A2 110.00 A5 880.00 A8 7040.0 116.54 932.33 7458.6 B2 123.47 B5 987.77 B8 7902.1 I hope this list has been helpful. David Tully. Article 13987 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!concert!samba.oit.unc.edu!not-for-mail From: Jeff.Soo@launchpad.unc.edu (Jeffrey Derrick Soo) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: >pitch frequencies needed Message-ID: <26pt8g$ces@samba.oit.unc.edu> Date: 10 Sep 93 12:51:28 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: lambada.oit.unc.edu :A is 440 :to go up a semi-tone multiply by 2^(1/12) (A# is ~466.164) :The next octave is double the frequency (next A is 880) :A fifth up is 3/2 the frequency (E above A440 is 660) E above A440 is 660 only in just intonation. In 12-note equal temperament (theoretical standard tuning for most Western music) E above 440 is (440)*{2^(7/12)}. I assume that the original post was concerned with 12-note ET. Jeff -- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 Article 13989 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!uunet!yeshua.marcam.com!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!csd.unb.ca!dedourek From: dedourek@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (John DeDourek) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: >pitch frequencies needed Message-ID: <1993Sep10.152805.24551@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> Date: 10 Sep 93 15:28:05 GMT References: <26pt8g$ces@samba.oit.unc.edu> Organization: University of New Brunswick Lines: 10 In article <26pt8g$ces@samba.oit.unc.edu> Jeff.Soo@launchpad.unc.edu (Jeffrey Derrick Soo) writes: >E above A440 is 660 only in just intonation. In 12-note equal temperament >(theoretical standard tuning for most Western music) E above 440 is >(440)*{2^(7/12)}. 659.25511 for E above A440 in equal temperament, if I did the calculation correctly. (As a barbershopper, we supposedly sing in just intonation, but as an amateur, I am not sure that we are QUITE THAT ACCURRATE.) John DeDourek Article 13991 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!mcsun!uknet!pipex!uunet!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!pv6f05.vincent.iastate.edu!xeno From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: >pitch frequencies needed Message-ID: Date: 10 Sep 93 15:57:23 GMT References: <26pt8g$ces@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Sep10.152805.24551@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA Lines: 17 In <1993Sep10.152805.24551@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> dedourek@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (John DeDourek) writes: >In article <26pt8g$ces@samba.oit.unc.edu> Jeff.Soo@launchpad.unc.edu (Jeffrey Derrick Soo) writes: >>E above A440 is 660 only in just intonation. In 12-note equal temperament >>(theoretical standard tuning for most Western music) E above 440 is >>(440)*{2^(7/12)}. >659.25511 for E above A440 in equal temperament, if I did the calculation >correctly. (As a barbershopper, we supposedly sing in just intonation, >but as an amateur, I am not sure that we are QUITE THAT ACCURRATE.) >John DeDourek I assure you that... as a barbershopper, it's easier for you to sing (in harmony) in just intonation than in equal temperament. ---Xeno Article 14001 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!uunet!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!dunix.drake.edu!acad.drake.edu!seh003 From: seh003@acad.drake.edu (A thousand angers have kept me alive) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: >pitch frequencies needed Message-ID: <1993Sep10.180744.1@acad.drake.edu> Date: 11 Sep 93 00:07:44 GMT References: <26pt8g$ces@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Sep10.152805.24551@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> Sender: news@dunix.drake.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA Lines: 17 Nntp-Posting-Host: acad.drake.edu In article <1993Sep10.152805.24551@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca>, dedourek@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (John DeDourek) writes: > In article <26pt8g$ces@samba.oit.unc.edu> Jeff.Soo@launchpad.unc.edu (Jeffrey Derrick Soo) writes: >>E above A440 is 660 only in just intonation. In 12-note equal temperament >>(theoretical standard tuning for most Western music) E above 440 is >>(440)*{2^(7/12)}. > > 659.25511 for E above A440 in equal temperament, if I did the calculation > correctly. (As a barbershopper, we supposedly sing in just intonation, > but as an amateur, I am not sure that we are QUITE THAT ACCURRATE.) > > John DeDourek Okay, it looks like I oversimplified a bit. But that brings up another question, what exactly is the difference between just intonation and equal temperament? -Stephen Article 14003 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!uunet!noc.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!jhurley From: jhurley@husc1.harvard.edu Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: >pitch frequencies needed Message-ID: <1993Sep10.201952.28297@husc1.harvard.edu> Date: 11 Sep 93 00:19:52 GMT References: <26pt8g$ces@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Sep10.152805.24551@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> <1993Sep10.180744.1@acad.drake.edu> Organization: Harvard University Science Center Lines: 11 Some of the answers to my question about pitch frequencies (especially on the classical music newsgroup, where people take this kind of stuff *very seriously*, suggested something that has probably occured to those who have written more serious music software than what I'm working on. I took it for granted that I would use equal temperament, but, since "tuning" a computer is not like tuning a piano, software could choose among possible temperaments on a short-term basis, so the question of the relative merits of temperaments, which seems as if it was obviated a long time ago, may be worth reopening, now that we are freed from the constraints of instruments and musicians. which seems as if it was obviated a long time ago, cou Article 14004 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!uunet!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!pv6f05.vincent.iastate.edu!xeno From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: >pitch frequencies needed Message-ID: Date: 11 Sep 93 01:15:12 GMT References: <26pt8g$ces@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Sep10.152805.24551@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca> <1993Sep10.180744.1@acad.drake.edu> <1993Sep10.201952.28297@husc1.harvard.edu> Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA Lines: 18 In <1993Sep10.201952.28297@husc1.harvard.edu> jhurley@husc1.harvard.edu writes: >Some of the answers to my question about pitch frequencies (especially on the >classical music newsgroup, where people take this kind of stuff *very >seriously*, suggested something that has probably occured to those who have >written more serious music software than what I'm working on. I took it for >granted that I would use equal temperament, but, since "tuning" a computer >is not like tuning a piano, software could choose among possible temperaments >on a short-term basis, so the question of the relative merits of temperaments, >which seems as if it was obviated a long time ago, may be worth reopening, now >that we are freed from the constraints of instruments and musicians. Many modern electronic synthesizers allow you to specify alternate tuning. Unfortunately, many of these force you to keep the octaves between C notes in perfect 1/2 ratios. This eliminates the ability to using various tuning methods based on the pure harmonies of other intervals, such as fifths. ---Xeno Article 14013 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!concert!samba.oit.unc.edu!not-for-mail From: Jeff.Soo@launchpad.unc.edu (Jeffrey Derrick Soo) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Just Intonation defined Message-ID: <26t3j7$1i4@samba.oit.unc.edu> Date: 11 Sep 93 17:57:59 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service Lines: 36 NNTP-Posting-Host: lambada.oit.unc.edu wrote: > Okay, it looks like I oversimplified a bit. But that brings up another > question, what exactly is the difference between just intonation and equal > temperament? Just to (hopefully) clarify: just intonation is a tuning system in which all of the intervals, i.e. frequency ratios, are rational numbers. Most users of just intonation further stipulate that the numerators and denominators of these ratios be reducible to relatively small prime numbers. (13 is a common limit.) Just Intonation (note capital letters) is sometimes defined as just intonation which uses only the prime numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5 ("5-limit just intonation"). Equal temperament is usually defined as a tuning system in which all of the intervals between pairs of adjacent notes are the same size. By this definition, just intonation and equal temperament are mutually exclusive systems: in an equal temperament, all intervals except for unisons and octaves will be irrational ratios. 12-note (per octave) equal temperament is the theoretical standard tuning system of most Western music. (Equal Temperament, capitalized, usually means 12-note equal temperament.) 24, 31, 53, and 72 are other equal temperaments which have been used. So what does all this mean? Well, to some composers it means quite a lot. If anyone is interested, I can go into very tedious detail. I would be willing to write an article for the FAQ file if there is much interest. Rationally, Jeff Soo -- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 Article 14016 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!uunet!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!dunix.drake.edu!acad.drake.edu!seh003 From: seh003@acad.drake.edu (A thousand angers have kept me alive) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: Just Intonation defined Message-ID: <1993Sep11.145401.1@acad.drake.edu> Date: 11 Sep 93 20:54:01 GMT References: <26t3j7$1i4@samba.oit.unc.edu> Sender: news@dunix.drake.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA Lines: 51 Nntp-Posting-Host: acad.drake.edu In article <26t3j7$1i4@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Jeff.Soo@launchpad.unc.edu (Jeffrey Derrick Soo) writes: > wrote: > >> Okay, it looks like I oversimplified a bit. But that brings up another >> question, what exactly is the difference between just intonation and equal >> temperament? > > Just to (hopefully) clarify: just intonation is a tuning system in which > all of the intervals, i.e. frequency ratios, are rational numbers. Most > users of just intonation further stipulate that the numerators and > denominators of these ratios be reducible to relatively small prime > numbers. (13 is a common limit.) Just Intonation (note capital letters) > is sometimes defined as just intonation which uses only the prime numbers > 1, 2, 3, and 5 ("5-limit just intonation"). > > Equal temperament is usually defined as a tuning system in which all of > the intervals between pairs of adjacent notes are the same size. By this > definition, just intonation and equal temperament are mutually exclusive > systems: in an equal temperament, all intervals except for unisons and > octaves will be irrational ratios. > > 12-note (per octave) equal temperament is the theoretical standard tuning > system of most Western music. (Equal Temperament, capitalized, usually > means 12-note equal temperament.) 24, 31, 53, and 72 are other equal > temperaments which have been used. > > So what does all this mean? Well, to some composers it means quite a lot. > If anyone is interested, I can go into very tedious detail. I would be > willing to write an article for the FAQ file if there is much interest. > > Rationally, > Jeff Soo Thanks for the explanation, Jeff. That makes more sense. I knew I had heard of this, but couldn't remember the specifics because I never paid much attention to it before (for shame!). If I have this right, the 2^(1/12) ratio is used in equal temperament? The next question is, out of the 7 synthesizers I've owned over the years, none of which provided anything other than "standard" tuning, were they likely all equal temperament? Is that the norm in the synth industry? -Stephen Article 14017 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!uunet!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.iastate.edu!pv6f05.vincent.iastate.edu!xeno From: xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: Just Intonation defined Message-ID: Date: 11 Sep 93 23:54:45 GMT References: <26t3j7$1i4@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Sep11.145401.1@acad.drake.edu> Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA Lines: 46 In <1993Sep11.145401.1@acad.drake.edu> seh003@acad.drake.edu (A thousand angers have kept me alive) writes: >The next question is, out of the 7 synthesizers I've owned over the >years, none of which provided anything other than "standard" tuning, were they >likely all equal temperament? Is that the norm in the synth industry? The short answer is 'yes'. The long answer is: All modern Western music is based upon equal temperament. Note that equal temperament is the only tuning system in which you can transpose the music up or down any number of half-steps without affecting the intervals. For example, a C major played in equal temperament has the exact same sound as an A major except that it is shifted up four half-steps. This is not always the case with other tuning systems. As an example, a pure perfect fifth is composed of the root and another note that is exactly 3/2 its frequency. But a quick check shows that under the equal temperament tuning system: If our root has frequency f, then the perfect fifth above it has frequency f * 2^(7/12) or 1.4983*f, which is slightly less than 3/2. And this is true no matter where the fifth is played on the scale. So all of the chords containing fifths aren't perfectly consonant under the equal temperament tuning system. The same is true of thirds (although thirds are actually larger than they pure thirds, as opposed to fifths which are smaller than pure fifths as demonstrated above). Why do we use equal temperament instead of something that allows perfect harmonies? If you tuned all the intervals on a piano to be 'pure' relative to some key, say C... then when you changed keys to something other than C, you'd need to retune your entire instrument, because the relative distances between the notes are not the same... So you'd either have to limit yourself to playing in a limited number of keys (most probably just one), you'd have to put up with terribly dissonant intervals when you changed keys, or you'd have to retune your entire instrument each time there was a key change. The first two options still aren't all that great, but with the development of synthesizers, it is perfectly feasible to design an instrument that will retune itself on command to whichever key you tell it to... I would like to hear such an instrument (skillfully played), myself. ---Xeno Article 14025 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!uunet!noc.near.net!news.delphi.com!news.delphi.com!not-for-mail From: mes2@news.delphi.com (MES2@DELPHI.COM) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: Just Intonation defined Message-ID: <26udco$1a0@news.delphi.com> Date: 12 Sep 93 05:51:20 GMT References: <26t3j7$1i4@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Sep11.145401.1@acad.drake.edu> Distribution: inet Organization: General Videotex Corporation Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: news.delphi.com seh003@acad.drake.edu (A thousand angers have kept me alive) writes: >The next question is, out of the 7 synthesizers I've owned over the >years, none of which provided anything other than "standard" tuning, were they >likely all equal temperament? Is that the norm in the synth industry? For any keyboard or fretted instrument since the late 17th cenury, just tuning is highly unlikely. The reason is that while just temperament sounds *wonderful* in the proper key, it sounds progressively odder and even unmusical the more remote your relation to that key. Equal-temperament sounds the same in all keys. The one place that just tuning can be heard commonly in modern music is a capella vocals. The human voice is the only imstrument easy enough to tune on the fly to retain the flexibility of equal temperament. I would have thought that someone could come up with a keyboard which would just-temper and retune based on the hitting of a key. Although the difference between just and equal tempering might be too subtle to matter on most cheap to mid-level keyboards. It is much more dramatic on an acoustic instrument. Michael Sullivan mes2@delphi.com Goal: To play Bach (ANY BACH!) and really believe I played it well. Article 14031 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!concert!samba.oit.unc.edu!not-for-mail From: Jeff.Soo@launchpad.unc.edu (Jeffrey Derrick Soo) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: >Re: Just Intonation defined Message-ID: <26vhr6$d65@samba.oit.unc.edu> Date: 12 Sep 93 16:13:26 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service Lines: 68 NNTP-Posting-Host: lambada.oit.unc.edu xeno@iastate.edu (Gary L Snethen) writes: >>The next question is, out of the 7 synthesizers I've owned over the >>years, none of which provided anything other than "standard" tuning, >>were they likely all equal temperament? Is that the norm in the synth >>industry? >The short answer is 'yes'. Unfortunately. But there are several synths and samplers which do offer some degree of user-defined tuning capability. I bought an Ensoniq EPS 16+ because of its tuneability. >The long answer is: > >All modern Western music is based upon equal temperament. Note that >equal temperament is the only tuning system in which you can transpose >the music up or down any number of half-steps without affecting the >intervals. Most Western music since circa 1830 is based on the theory of equal temperament. In the world of "classical" music there have been notable exceptions. Also, some folk musics make deliberate use of intervals which are not included in Equal Temperament. It is possible to transpose indefinitely in just intonation, but to do so requires an indefinite number of pitches per octave. >Why do we use equal temperament instead of something that allows perfect >harmonies? If you tuned all the intervals on a piano to be 'pure' relative >to some key, say C... then when you changed keys to something other than C, >you'd need to retune your entire instrument, because the relative distances >between the notes are not the same... So you'd either have to limit yourself >to playing in a limited number of keys (most probably just one), you'd have >to put up with terribly dissonant intervals when you changed keys, or you'd >have to retune your entire instrument each time there was a key change. The >first two options still aren't all that great, but with the development of >synthesizers, it is perfectly feasible to design an instrument that will >retune itself on command to whichever key you tell it to... Just intonation on the piano (or in any system restricted to 12 pitches per octave) is indeed severely limited in terms of harmonic mobility, but there are some interesting pieces for piano in JI: Terry Riley's "The Harp of New Albion" is beautiful (Riley manages to increase the effective number of pitches per octave in this 5-limit tuning by using the interval 225/128 as a convincing approximation 7/4.) Ben Johnston's "Suite for Microtonal Piano" uses a 19-limit tuning which transforms the piano into an entirely new instrument. I was lucky enough to hear an excellent performance of this piece; I was floored by it, almost literally. The sound of complex harmonies without any beating, on the piano, is like a suspension of time; I nearly fell out of my chair a few times. Unfortunately, this piece has not been commercially recorded. Both of these pieces use modality to provide harmonic structure: this seems to be the inevitable solution to the limitation of 12 pitches per octave. The Riley piece also makes extensive use of "wolf" intervals. A system for "intelligent" pitch control of sythesizers has apparently been patented, in 1979, by Harold Waage. It is apparently designed to automatically adjust the tuning of chords into 7-limit tuning. I do not know to what extent such systems have been successfully implemented. Jeff Soo -- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 Article 14032 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!pipex!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!concert!samba.oit.unc.edu!not-for-mail From: Jeff.Soo@launchpad.unc.edu (Jeffrey Derrick Soo) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: >Re: Just Intonation defined Message-ID: <26vj89$dus@samba.oit.unc.edu> Date: 12 Sep 93 16:37:29 GMT Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: lambada.oit.unc.edu mes2@news.delphi.com (MES2@DELPHI.COM) writes: >The one place that just tuning can be heard commonly in modern music is a >capella vocals. The human voice is the only imstrument easy enough to >tune on the fly to retain the flexibility of equal temperament. I don't think that it's at all common for a capella groups to sing in just intonation, except for a few groups such as Early Music ensembles and Barbershop Quartets who make a very deliberate effort to do so. The instruments of the violin family, although somewhat restricted by the pitches of the open strings, are entirely flexible in pitch, as Ben Johnston's many String Quartets in just intonation demonstrate. The trombone is also highly flexible in pitch. Many other instruments have a fair degree of pitch flexibility. Jeff Soo -- The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service. internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80 Article 14060 of comp.music: Path: vall!sics.se!sunic!mcsun!uunet!korgrd!dan From: dan@korgrd.com (Dan Phillips) Newsgroups: comp.music Subject: Re: Just Intonation Defined Message-ID: Date: 13 Sep 93 20:04:46 GMT Organization: Korg Research and Development, Milpitas, CA Lines: 28 Gary L Snethen writes: > The > first two options still aren't all that great, but with the development of > synthesizers, it is perfectly feasible to design an instrument that will > retune itself on command to whichever key you tell it to... > > I would like to hear such an instrument (skillfully played), myself. Try the Waldorf MicroWave, which includes an instantaneous just-intonation feature - it continually makes minor adjustments to tuning to keep all intervals as "just" as possible. Quite interesting, really - they need to do this while 1.) keeping the instrument in relatively good tune with a fixed frequency reference and 2.) without the shifts in the tuning of sounding notes being evident. In my opinion, they were pretty successful... IMHO, unfortunately, with any sound that uses detuning, chorusing, etc., the effect basically disappears. - Dan -- Dan Phillips KORG Research and Developement ____ "Stupid quote" "Cheerful Remark" Meta-Sigs Inc. ________ Opinions here are not necessarily those held by my employers. Or mine, either. Maybe.