The equally tempered scale is dirty

[IncarnateX]

it's subjective of course.

Yes. What sound pleasing or not is neither for the inventor of HTM nor any critics to decide.

I like the idea but whether it sucks or not would depend on how it actually sounds to me and not on theoretical propositions or physical facts for that matter.

[jancivil]

I would like to see HMT applied to something else than this synth. Having looked at the creator's pdf a bit after seeing the Waldorf webpage, it looks like the latter doesn't seem to quite understand his work, at least the presentation is IMO terrible. So that thing I wouldn't spend time with. Werner Mohrlok, the creator of the Hermode Tuning System says he doesn't find it does much for the synth actually, he doesn't care for it.

[jancivil]

it's subjective of course.

Yes. What sound pleasing or not is neither for the inventor of HTM nor any critics to decide.

I like the idea but whether it sucks or not would depend on how it actually sounds to me and not on theoretical propositions or physical facts for that matter.

Well, 'it will be pleasing to you' is based in experience with what people do that are charged with making things sound as good, or pleasing as they can. Your last statement can be taken to imply that someone proceeded from a theory as top-down and that would be skewed. There is a correspondence between 'we do this' and the simpler rational intervals. There is a point to it.

Such as Hansford Rowe's talk about the Warwick bass involves the overtone series. Materials vibrate according to physics, and the things that result on this acoustically happening planet are known. So there's something to following sound by its own devices. OTOH there is conditioning, JJF said there were blind tests where people came out liking ET better. There are tests I'm sure that say people prefer lossy, degraded audio. There is a point where you're trying to vacate the objective by this move 'it's all subjective'.

[james0tucson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-9FNHz1ygw

Thanks for posting this. I'm blown away. I'm also stunned that someone can afford to do this to, not just any bass, but a Warwick...

[IncarnateX]

Well, 'it will be pleasing to you' is based in experience with what people do that are charged with making things sound as good, or pleasing as they can. Your last statement can be taken to imply that someone proceeded from a theory as top-down and that would be skewed. There is a correspondence between 'we do this' and the simpler rational intervals. There is a point to it.

Such as Hansford Rowe's talk about the Warwick bass involves the overtone series. Materials vibrate according to physics, and the things that result on this acoustically happening planet are known. So there's something to following sound by its own devices. OTOH there is conditioning, JJF said there were blind tests where people came out liking ET better. There are tests I'm sure that say people prefer lossy, degraded audio. There is a point where you're trying to vacate the objective by this move 'it's all subjective'.

They can have as many experiences about what is pleasing to others as they like but whether it is pleasing to me is an empirical question to be tested. Simple as that. As such any claim about whether I peronally will like it is hypothetical, even if based on others statements of preference.

Of blind tests with musical material I am sceptical because they are mostly made testing elements of music but not entirely pieces of music. E.g. An interval might sound dissonant in isloation but not in a musical context. An isolated sound might sound degraded but you may not notice in a piece if music of your preference. And even if 1000 people in a test would prefer on entire piece of music over and above another it wouldn't mean that I would too. Thus as I see there is really no way people can convince me whether I would like an alternative tuning system or another until I get my hands on it and experiment with it. Equally there is no way they can convince me about the preferences of others in advance. They can report their experiences so far and that is all cool.

However it seems like I was commenting the first description "this mode will please your ears" and not your latter link.

This can all be summed up in a KVR cliche: Different does not mean better!

[jancivil]

I'd just like to provide context and re-ground the discussion, which I think people can benefit from; this has taken a turn following a trollish 'who cares' and now you're giving a lot of opinion which won't do anything for anybody.

[IncarnateX]

I'm just providing context and grounding the discussion, which I think people can benefit from; this has taken a turn 'who cares' and now you're giving a lot of opinion that won't do anything for anybody.

I just responded to your response to my post which was not quoted from you in the first place. I you do not want me to write then you should not comment my post with assumtions of what I mean by my statements or whether they sound skewed to you. I am not commenting on your general agenda, whatever that is.

[jancivil]

"Your last statement can be taken to imply that someone proceeded from a theory as top-down and that would be skewed." What does this have to do with whether or not it was a reply to me? The context for that seems clear and obvious. And I said more about it, which I think is worth saying.

You went on and on about a war zone but what are you doing with "I am not commenting on your general agenda, whatever that is."? Make it personal. Take the bit that upset you and fight!

I am definitely aware that you were reacting to 'This major chord will please your ears'.

I don't believe I can control you at all. As you say this, you are essentially telling me to shut up.

[IncarnateX]

I don't believe I can control you at all. As you say this, you are essentially telling me to shut up.

What? Are you paranoid? What I told in my response to your response is the reason why my statement is not skewed to me. And what I tell you in my second response is that if you do not like me to explain that, you shouldn't repond to it

And i believe the war zone thing was directed at two other threads and not this one, so there is no reason to use that as bias of interpretation.

I see no personal insults here.

[jancivil]

"And even if 1000 people in a test would prefer on entire piece of music over and above another it wouldn't mean that I would too." What possible relevance has this?

"Thus as I see there is really no way people can convince me" - I wouldn't dream of it. You're not the subject of the thread.

[jancivil]

I don't believe I can control you at all. As you say this, you are essentially telling me to shut up.

What? Are you paranoid? What I told in my response to your response is the reason why my statement is not skewed to me. And what I tell you in my second response is that if you do not like me to explain that, you shouldn't repond to it

"You shouldn't respond"/You should shut up. Thanks for that. This 'if you do not like me to explain that' is all you and you're actually projecting onto me with it.

I said if that is what you wanted to do with that, it would be skewed; as a rhetorical statement, in the context of several other things preceding it. I don't think the author of the Hermode Tuning started to justify a top-down theory but believes this is good for musicians as a tool, based in experience.

Thanks for sharing.

[IncarnateX]

"And even if 1000 people in a test would prefer on entire piece of music over and above another it wouldn't mean that I would too." What possible relevance has this?

"Thus as I see there is really no way people can convince me" - I wouldn't dream of it. You're not the subject of the thread.

What I said: That a statement like "this mode will sound pleasing to you" is a hypothetical statement and thus subjective until proven. That was after all the part you thought sound skewed if it implied theoretical proposition made out of the blue and not based on experience. Well it did not. Case closed.

[IncarnateX]

double post.

[IncarnateX]

I don't believe I can control you at all. As you say this, you are essentially telling me to shut up.

What? Are you paranoid? What I told in my response to your response is the reason why my statement is not skewed to me. And what I tell you in my second response is that if you do not like me to explain that, you shouldn't repond to it

"You shouldn't respond"/You should shut up. Thanks for that.

You are twisting words here, the statement had a premise: that if you do not want ME to repond toy YOUR comments to my post as implied in your assumption that I was trolling and that my opinions are not good for anything, then you should not repond in the first place. Take it as a kind advice because I certainly intend to repond to misunderstandings of what I am writing.

[jancivil]

Let it go. I felt that the thread took a negating and tiresome turn out of something I feel was troll-like. You're not making me like it better this way. (I would prefer that you do explain that. I framed that remark carefully, actually. Even your paraphrasing contains 'if you'. If you were implying that; and so you weren't. Great.)

My general agenda... my actual statements are pretty nuanced, though. I opined that music that isn't rooted for very long tends to be suited by equal temperament, for instance, there may not be that much to gain by worrying about this.
I'm the opposite of an ideologue (and I'm not even any 'music theorist'). I think that road leads to unnecessary problems.

This isn't me lecturing, there is a context running through a thread. I saw the OP reply to 'aciddose' "it isn't pointless" and this was a new plot point. Maybe I should shut up, but I wanted to correct course.
I think it's good stuff to know about to have more choices. It's material.