From: Dave Frightens Me on
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:28:00 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dave Frightens Me writes:
>
>> You have inferred it.
>
>I have not described any inferences of mine with respect to my
>intelligence (or lack thereof).

No, you haven't. That's not necessary to infer something though.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
From: Mxsmanic on
Dave Frightens Me writes:

> No, you haven't. That's not necessary to infer something though.

True, but if I don't describe my inferences, you have no way of
knowing what they are. I suppose you could make inferences of your
own, but they would not necessarily be accurate.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Stanislas de Kertanguy on
Dans son message prcdent, Mxsmanic a crit :

> What is certain is that music is fundamentally based on the
> subjectively pleasing sound of multiple frequencies spatially or
> temporally separated that bear certain simple mathematical
> relationships to each other.


How is what you wrote a "rule" ? It looks more like a definition, or a
general property.

And you claim there were universal rules to music, so far, you've put
out one, with a lot of effort.

--
remplacez "lesptt" par "laposte" pour me joindre
substitute "laposte" for "lesptt" to reach me


From: dgs on
The Reid wrote:

> [...] we don't really know which way Mixi swings,
> do we?

Ewww. Ick. Don't wanna know, either.
--
dgs
From: Hatunen on
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:21:56 -0500, barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk
wrote:

>In article <pfdpd2d9uvs94du0bnlb352a7p91kkeb9d(a)4ax.com>, hatunen(a)cox.net
>(Hatunen) wrote:
>
>> *From:* Hatunen <hatunen(a)cox.net>
>> *Date:* Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:57:44 -0700
>>
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:34:32 -0500, barney2(a)cix.compulink.co.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <v8mod29jovghn6ns4jerg1n4g48funs1nb(a)4ax.com>,
>> >mxsmanic(a)gmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote:
>> >
>> >> *From:* Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com>
>> >> *Date:* Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:17:30 +0200
>> >>
>> >> Martin writes:
>> >>
>> >> > The pink oboe?
>> >>
>> >> I simply wanted to know if it was equal temperament (such as a piano)
>> >> or not (such as a violin).
>> >
>> >Now that you know, are you going to answer my enquiry as to why a
>> major >triad with far-from-integer ratios among the frequencies is
>> nevertheless, >in the West, broadly considered a 'pleasing' sound?
>>
>> The ratio of 1.259921 in the even-tempered scale is the best
>> approximation to a ratio of 5:4 of the diatonic scale; the ideal
>> 5:4 ratio would be the ideal harmonic.
>
>So the reason that C4-G4 sounds 'better' than C4-F#4 is that the ratio of
>the former, 1:1.498303, is closer to 10:15

I think you mean 2:3.

> than the latter, 1:1.41421, is to 10:14?
>
>(This is a genuine question.)

I may have to work this out. The notes on the well-tempered scale
are related to the twelfth root of two ( 2^1/12). In any case
1:1.41421 is approximately 5:7. But yes, the ratio of 2:3 is more
harmonious.

************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *