Re: Descending aug and dim intervals

"Tom K." <tkorth1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:atqdnRa3m4apc53VnZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Steve Latham" <llatham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:WS5Mj.3523$bx3.2925@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Tom K." <tkorth1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:_u2dnfGVbbHMuJ3VnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Steve Latham" <llatham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>> news:1dPLj.42$iI3.40@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "Tom K." <tkorth1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>> news:Z-edncsoOfh7JWLanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is a "negative distance" in terms of musical intervals, Dave? 
>>>>> Sounds a bit like like our late, unlamented "Diminished Prime"!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. What if, two people are playing a unison - or you have a synth
set 
>>>> up to play two waveforms in unison. Then you detune one by lowering
the 
>>>> pitch. It seems that there's good cause for calling that a 
>>>> "dimini****ng" unison.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or if the strings of a piano note don't react the same way to changes
in 
>>> temp & humidity.  Happens all the time.  But rather than call it a 
>>> "dimini****ng unison", I'd call it an "unison in the process of being 
>>> augmented" - or better still, "out of tune"!
>>> Tom
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, but I'm looking at it from the perspective of the in tune string 
>> against the one that's getting lower. You're allowing the detuned
string 
>> to assume the "correct" pitch, and the correct string to become "higher

>> than" the other (IOW, calculating intervals from the lowest frequency 
>> sound up). While we do it that way, seems like a relativity issue.
>>
>
> Steve, maybe I'm unusually dense today, but I still can't fathom the 
> difference between (for example) the interval formed by a 440Hz string 
> down to a 438Hz string and the one formed by a 438Hz string up to a
440Hz 
> string. And suppose both strings are the only ones working on a 
> particularly deficient piano - so neither one is the "correct" pitch?
> Tom K.

Assuming they're both supposed to be 440, then the 438 would be wrong.

!