 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
While playing around with a new feature in Rockbox (a feature I helped
somewhat in the development - called "time stretching" - ie, playing a
track back at a speed that was different than the original speed without
adjusting pitch - and in the final implementation, being able to adjust
the pitch without adjusting the speed of playback), I happened across the
following article:
http://home.earthlink.net/~douglaspage/id86.html
I was looking for some sort of a guide to adjust the playback of some
Bach violin solos (Partida #4) to get a sound that was closer to what the
instrument would've been tuned to in Bach's day.
The last section of the paper was the relevant information - and some
history that none of my music history classes really touched upon other
than to say "tuning was traditionally flat compared to modern tuning".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~douglaspage/id86.html
"[...]the superior olivary nucleus, a wavy band of grey matter within
the brain's medulla oblongata."
WIN!
> The last section of the paper was the relevant information - and some
> history that none of my music history classes really touched upon other
> than to say "tuning was traditionally flat compared to modern tuning".
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/364
(Note the date of posting.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The last section of the paper was the relevant information - and some
>> history that none of my music history classes really touched upon
>> other than to say "tuning was traditionally flat compared to modern
>> tuning".
>
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/364
Also:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Music_intervals_frequency_ratio_equal_tempered_pythagorean_comparison.svg
Grey = equal tempered scale
Blue = Pythagorean scale
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The last section of the paper was the relevant information - and some
> history that none of my music history classes really touched upon other
> than to say "tuning was traditionally flat compared to modern tuning".
...although...they could have just meant that the reference pitch was
traditionally lower. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:32:05 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/364
I could've sworn you'd written something on this subject, but when I went
looking I couldn't find it again. Thanks for the link!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:25:10 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> The last section of the paper was the relevant information - and some
>> history that none of my music history classes really touched upon other
>> than to say "tuning was traditionally flat compared to modern tuning".
>
> ...although...they could have just meant that the reference pitch was
> traditionally lower. ;-)
Well, yeah, that was probably how it was phrased. It's been a generation
since I took those classes - memory ain't what it used to be. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> The last section of the paper was the relevant information - and some
>>> history that none of my music history classes really touched upon other
>>> than to say "tuning was traditionally flat compared to modern tuning".
>> ...although...they could have just meant that the reference pitch was
>> traditionally lower. ;-)
>
> Well, yeah, that was probably how it was phrased. It's been a generation
> since I took those classes - memory ain't what it used to be. :-)
Yes - considering that the equal tempered scale tunes almost every
interval *sharp* of the Pythagorean scale, not flat. ;-)
But yeah, apparently the reference pitch has undergone a kind of "pitch
inflation" over the centuries. Strings tuned to higher pitches sound
brighter and more brilliant, leading to a slow gradual upwards trend...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/364
>
> I could've sworn you'd written something on this subject, but when I went
> looking I couldn't find it again. Thanks for the link!
But does it make any *sense*? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:06:02 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/archives/364
>>
>> I could've sworn you'd written something on this subject, but when I
>> went looking I couldn't find it again. Thanks for the link!
>
> But does it make any *sense*? ;-)
It did to me. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:05:39 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>>> The last section of the paper was the relevant information - and some
>>>> history that none of my music history classes really touched upon
>>>> other than to say "tuning was traditionally flat compared to modern
>>>> tuning".
>>> ...although...they could have just meant that the reference pitch was
>>> traditionally lower. ;-)
>>
>> Well, yeah, that was probably how it was phrased. It's been a
>> generation since I took those classes - memory ain't what it used to
>> be. :-)
>
> Yes - considering that the equal tempered scale tunes almost every
> interval *sharp* of the Pythagorean scale, not flat. ;-)
Yeah, but the tuning note for older orchestral works was traditionally
considered to be below 440 Hz, though nobody knows for sure up until
those dates in the 19th century.
> But yeah, apparently the reference pitch has undergone a kind of "pitch
> inflation" over the centuries. Strings tuned to higher pitches sound
> brighter and more brilliant, leading to a slow gradual upwards trend...
Yep....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
