--- In tuning-math@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> OK, cool. MATLAB is fine with me. (If I didn't "allow" you
> to use it, does that mean that you'd go thru the drudgery of
> the hand calculations just to show me how it's done?
I might try and then give up.
>
> Did we ever take a serious look at 11-odd-limit approximations
> in the MIRACLE family?
Oh yes . . . Dave Keenan has been thinking 11-limit all along. He posted some
7-limit and
11-limit optimization results, and I posted a 9-limit one, fully worked out
step-by-step
(remember?). We've talked about the hexads in Canasta, and these are 11-limit
hexads, of
course . . . etc. etc..
> I'd like to include 11 if you have no preference.
... Monz wrote, ... OK -- we now have to do a two-parameter optimization, where the two parameters are the size of the generator (let's call it G), and the ...
monz
joemonz@...
May 24, 2001 3:45 am
... I might try and then give up. ... Oh yes . . . Dave Keenan has been thinking 11-limit all along. He posted some 7-limit and 11-limit optimization results,...
Paul Erlich
paul@...
May 24, 2001 4:08 am
... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning-math/message/18 ... Of course... duh! I knew all this. Guess it's just information overload. ... Sure! Guess...
monz
joemonz@...
May 24, 2001 5:09 am
... Umm . . . I thought that explanation used a _prime-limit_ of 13, not an _integer-limit_ of 12. In particular, Partch showed that Schoenberg's two...
Paul Erlich
paul@...
May 24, 2001 5:17 am
... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning-math/message/20 ... Damn, Paul! Duh again! I had signed off for the night, and just realized this error and came back...
monz
joemonz@...
May 24, 2001 6:16 am
I wrote, ... Oops! That should be 104:99, not 143:128! ... Really? So ratios such as 16:9 would have fallen outside it?...
Paul Erlich
paul@...
May 24, 2001 6:11 pm
... Paul, I started a response to this but it is getting long and interesting. I'll post it tonight. -monz...
monz
joemonz@...
May 25, 2001 4:47 pm
... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning-math/message/24 ... 143:128). ... (early response:) Oops... Schoenberg doesn't actually claim that the 12th harmonic...
monz
joemonz@...
May 27, 2001 5:55 pm
... 7:4 (really a subminor 7th) between g-36 and f-63...
Dave Keenan
D.KEENAN@...
May 28, 2001 4:20 am
... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning-math/message/44 ... <cut> etc. This is an extremely interesting post, Monz, and I would recommend that it be reposted...
jpehrson@...
Jun 3, 2001 4:04 pm
Oh, Monz . . . you're not expecting the result to be a stretched or squashed 72-tET, are you? 'Cause if you are, then it's a one- parameter optimization --...
Paul Erlich
paul@...
May 24, 2001 7:29 pm
... And if it is, the answer is 71.959552-tET, or 72-tET with the octave stretched to 1200.6745¢....
Paul Erlich
paul@...
May 25, 2001 7:59 pm
... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning-math/message/31 ... With a step-size of 16.67603472 cents. Thanks, Paul. Uh... I don't think "expecting" is the way ...
monz
joemonz@...
May 27, 2001 9:00 am
... I agree (with the first bit) Graham...
graham@...
May 27, 2001 12:27 pm
... Well, because it's easier to solve the problem of how best to stretch or squashed 72-tET for the 12-integer-limit (a univariate optimization), than to...
Paul Erlich
paul@...
May 28, 2001 9:14 am
... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning-math/message/21 ... Can you imagine this? And, it's one of his "easier" works, in the overview... ________ ______...
Send Email