Saturday, February 20, 2021

the phrase "compounded" and "decompounded" is used as the bait and switch coverup of noncommutative phase in music

 http://dspace.chitkara.edu.in/jspui/bitstream/1/546/1/32014_MJIS_Abdounur.pdf

So let's double check the consistency here.

 corresponds mathematically to taking 3:4 of the string followed by taking 2:3 of the remainder,....the compounding ratios underlie the composition of musical intervals"

So he says 2:3 is C to G and he is also saying 2:3 is the WAVELENGTH as "compounding" or multiplying. Whereas "decompounding" is multiplying by the inversion or dividing.

So now let's see how this is applied....

 the note produced falls outside of the initial octave, a fourth 3:4 could be produced by decompounding an fifth from the initial note followed by the composition of an octave, which will result in 1:1 decompounded by 2:3, which is 3:2 and this decompounded by 1:2 which is 3:4.

So if you take 1:1 and "decompound" by the WAVELENGTH that is 2/3rd then means you multiply by a WAVELENGTH that is LONGER than the initial string. You multiply by a 3/2 wavelength to "decompound" which then gives you a FREQUENCY of 2/3 as C to F. 

The "Frequency" of 2:3 is C to G as "3" or 3/2 frequency with 2/3 wavelength.

So how is it possible? To multiply a 1:1 wavelength ratio by a 3/2 wavelength! The answer is that it's NOT possible.

You can either double the octave again or you can use a DIFFERENT octave.

 For instance, if one begins with F an octave lower – instead of c –, which corresponds to the ratio 3:4 decompounded by 1:2, that is, 3:2, then after compounding it with a fifth, generated by 2:3, it will result in 1:1, that is c, from which the process initiated.

 So to get the 4 is required to DOUBLE the octave! But that is not what is said. Instead by simply referring to "compounding" ratios of a NEW octave - the "F" root tonic - then we no longer need a physical explanation. So we do not need an empirical source of the 3:4 even though it's NOT part of the overtone series of the original 1:1 ratio! The Perfect Fourth as 3:4 is NOT part of the 1:1 as the overtone series. 

So either we start with a wavelength that is physically impossible as it's longer than 1:1 OR we start with a completely different root tonic which has a different pitch meaning than the 1:1. Either way is logically cheating compared to LISTENING to the one.

So how does one just "begin with F an octave lower" - well you have to double the octave first of all. So... but if you are LISTENING then the "F" is not part of the overtone series.

So a Violin or other open natural string instrument does produce undertones.

our singing voice also produces undertones as "throat singing" demonstrates.

So the question remains if you are "decompounding" by 2:3 this assumes a logarithmic ratio already whereby the undertone is due to "subtracting" as division or multiplication by inversion.

When two or more ratios are multiplies termwise; the ratio thus obtained is called compound ratio.

Since the term "decompounded" is no longer used - I could ONLY find it in a math book from 1814

!!!!

Wow - just confirming its meaning 

yes it is subtracting ratios as inverted multiplication.


No comments:

Post a Comment