Talk:Carlos Alpha
|
This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion. |
Reference issues w/r/t tuning value, optimization targets, and name
This wiki page claims that the "standard tuning" for Carlos Alpha is 77.965 ¢, giving her "Tuning: At the Crossroads", Computer Music Journal vol. 11 no. 1, 1987, pp. 29-43 as a reference (here's a link to that article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3680176). However, I've reviewed the article and can't find where it defines this tuning, let alone where it refers to it as a "standard" tuning.
The wiki page later explains that this 77.965 ¢ tuning is the result of optimizing on 3/2, 5/4 and 6/5. That may be so, but it does not come either from this CMJ article, or from the one external link this wiki page gives (https://www.wendycarlos.com/resources/pitch.html). Both of these articles only give the tuning 78.0 ¢, and find it as an optimization not only for 3/2, 5/4, and 6/5, but also for 7/4 and 11/8.
Probably there is some other article out there that gives 77.965 ¢ as the tuning optimized for only 3/2, 5/4, and 6/5, but this reference needs to be found, and we should replace the incorrect one currently on the wiki page with it. Also, unless this reference refers to this as a "standard" tuning, that claim should be removed.
I see that similar problems occur on the other Carlos scale pages, but maybe we can centralize the discussion here. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is a similar formula on the corresponding Wikipedia article, and the associated reference indicates indeed that Carlos's papers only included the rounded figure of 78.0¢ per step. Nonetheless, if we are to believe that the 78.0¢ figure was obtained using the same formula, then it seems natural for one to want the exact figure, or at least a more accurate one. I haven't checked the original papers to see if they included the formula or an equivalent explanation, so that might require some fact-checking to be sure. That said, I agree that the three-decimals figure (77.965¢) is not of a "standard" by any means that I know of, except maybe that the Xen Wiki tends to keep cents values to three decimals most of the time. Fredg999 (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- For context, the discussion occurred on Facebook. Carlos Alpha was treated as exactly 9edf before he pointed out it wasn't that, and it was suspected 78.0 ¢ of Carlos Alpha, 63.8 ¢ of Carlos Beta, and 35.1 ¢ of Carlos Gamma were approximate values of 9edf, 11edf, and 20edf, respectively. FloraC (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, beautiful work Flora! Above and beyond. Those Carlos Alpha, Beta, and Gamma pages are looking spic and span now. Thanks for looking into it. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Merge with valentine
Should this be merged with Valentine, which is the same system? —hkm (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- See above — looks like it is different enough that it should be counted as related but not the same, even though apparently some composers use 9edf to approximate it. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- More specifically, Valentine has 2/1 as the equave, whereas 9edf has 3/2 as the equave, and Carlos Alpha does not use either of these, although it gets close to 9edf. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Carlos Alpha is supposed to be used with repeated copies in multiple octaves (which is how Carlos uses it in Beauty in the Beast afaik). —hkm (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- From Carlos’ page: “Since each of the redundant interval pairs is symmetric with respect to the octave, the result is a kind of "over-representation" of this interval. But the octave is a ratio most common to the "strategies" of many instruments, including newer synthesizer architectures. Look at their 16', 8', 4' octaving borrowed from the pipe organ. Most timbres/instrument voices include a similar designation of transpositions up or down by octaves. We have octave possibilities all over the place. So why not, as an experiment, investigate divisions which are not integer based, but allow fractional parts? That will lose all octave symmetry, but if we handle the octaving later, we might be able to find some really interesting equal-step specimens.” —hkm (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Assuming that I found the right page (https://www.wendycarlos.com/resources/pitch.html), this also says "If you try to play through a one octave scale of Alpha, you'd find there are 4 steps to the minor third, 5 steps to the major third, and 9 steps to the perfect (no kidding) fifth, but, or course, no octave. The closest 'attempt' at this is an awful 1170 cent version, which sounds awfully flat. Yet the next step to 1248 cents is even further away, and hopelessly sharp, except for timbres like those in a gamelan ensemble." So you might get a match with an octave eventually, but not in just 1 octave, whereas Valentine expects to repeat notes at every single octave. That small step from around 1170 ¢ to 1200 ¢ (assuming the mode in which it is the last step in the scale) is the small step of Valentine 15L 1s. So the Valentine and Carlos Alpha pages might need to have links to each other, but shouldn't be merged. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Carlos expects us to "handle the octaving later," bringing this to be the same as Valentine. (Carlos is just describing the generator chain without periods above.) (It is true, though, that Carlos Alpha is a special case of Valentine, or Valentine with additional constraints, specifically the tunings of the generators and the expectation that copies of an an equal-step tuning rather than, for example, MOS scales are the intended approach--so maybe the pages should be kept seperate anyway.) --hkm (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
- From my understanding of the description of Carlos Alpha, since it doesn't specify a period and Valentine does, they are not the same. Now what might make sense would be to have an article (Valentine extended family?) that links them together, and keep separate sub-pages for Carlos Alpha, Valentine proper, etc. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)