Frank Nordberg wrote: >Derek Lane-Smith wrote: >> >> There is an implied assumption in the prior discussion that 'just' >> intonation, with small number ratios of the frequencies, is in tune, while >> other ratios, such as equal temperament, are slightly out of tune. > >I think it's dangerous to use the phrase "in tune" in this context. It >seem to me that this discussion clearly demonstrates that perfect >intonation is neither possible nor desireable. .................... > >............ in the end the most precise sound monitor is the human ear, and the most >advanced sound processor is the human brain. > >I don't know about the rest of you, but *I* feel good about that :-) > I agree, Frank. My earlier contribution to the discussion, and the results of the lab experiments that I quoted, were to demonstrate precisely that point. Apart from the semantics about what is a Meantone scale, or a Pythagorean scale, there is no 'perfect' scale, or even a 'perfect' (in the sense of being without blemish) interval. What sounds best in one situation may sound inferior (even out of tune!) in another. The Greeks did such a fabulous job of discovering the world, that they constrained fresh scientific thinking for more than a millenium. IMHO we still suffer from many generally accepted attitudes first promulgated by Aristotle and Plato. It may be that dwelling on the 'perfection' of frequency ratios like 5:4 for musical intervals is one of them. One thing the ear/brain seems pretty firm about, though, is the 2:1 ratio for the octave. This, I guess, is why piano tuning stretches only the extreme octaves, at each end of the keyboard. Derek To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
