website music training test - Page 2

fingerpikingood · 03-11-2010, 01:22 AM

just tried the 'pure' tuning in akoustik piano, i assume that's supposed to be just intonation, and to be honest, i can't stand it. horrible sounding, in every key i've tried so far. even sounds a little like chinese music of, except worse. piano doesn't ring nicely either. i'm really not a big fan. not sure what they're on about of how awesome it is, but forgotten, or equal temperamaent not sounding better even after conditioning. i beg to differ, and greatly. if what i tried is just intonation, i can't stand it, and couldn't stand any music created with it. very unpleasant. almost like screaching fingernails on a blackboard.

out of all the tunings the WER III is almost playable, Kirn II too, I don't know what Valotti is supposed to be, but actually i liked that one, even made stretch sound out of tune somehow, made stretch sound more like pure when i switched to it i think the F chord is particularly nice in that tuning, but the other keys don't seem way off. maybe it's equal temperament with slight bias to F scale? idk, but that one is pretty good actually. only tried it on its own without other instruments though. Young tuning is similar but i think biased on different chords like C major, and G minor. it's hard to say though cause everything is kind of relative.

weird, i kind of wish i hadn't done that though, because now equal tempereament doesn't sound as perfect as it used to somehow, which kind of really sucks.

JonR · 03-11-2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fingerpikingood

just tried the 'pure' tuning in akoustik piano, i assume that's supposed to be just intonation, and to be honest, i can't stand it. horrible sounding, in every key i've tried so far.

Well, non-equal temperaments are only supposed to work in one key, so one of them should sound good (and the other 12 will sound wrong to varying degrees). I would guess C major would be the default pure key, but I don't know.
Is there no documentation with these tunings to tell you how they're derived and which keys are tuned?

fingerpikingood · 03-11-2010, 10:33 PM

ya there must be, i just didn't read them. the pure one seemed wrong in every key.

the ones that sounded pretty good to me, definitely seemed as though they must have been key dependent, but they are subtle, i didn't try many keys, just played with them real quick, noticed some chords sounded better than others, and then when i went to equal temperament, noticed for the first time, how everything was soundign a bit off. kind of sucky thing to notice.

fingerpikingood · 03-12-2010, 08:24 PM

I still don't find these tests are particularly well designed, but for the tone deaf one, which doesn't actually test tone deafness, i got 86.1%

and for the image one, i got 85% which is a completely useless test. the guy talks about some other kind of "intelligence" which is somehow a trap that alot of psychologists, have fallen into. naming all sorts of things intelligence, as though intelligence were synonymous with aptitude.

but anyways, 86.1% and 85%, for what it's worth which isn't much.

the first test was good. simple and tested a human ability accurately, all the others were unscientific. or they tested ability to do those tests just fine, but as far as why, and what abilities a human has that completes them well. these tests leave much to be desired.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Music as a global language. Looking for inspiration.	joctavarium	Mental Stuff	5	10-28-2009 10:07 PM
5 whole steps and 2 half?	RadioSlave	Music Theory	30	09-02-2009 05:12 PM
Modes.	asheykate	Music Theory	88	05-18-2009 10:49 PM
Psychological and metaphysical aspects of Music	Blastrid	iBreathe Cafe	11	12-22-2004 02:06 AM

03-11-2010, 01:22 AM	#16
fingerpikingood Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 863	just tried the 'pure' tuning in akoustik piano, i assume that's supposed to be just intonation, and to be honest, i can't stand it. horrible sounding, in every key i've tried so far. even sounds a little like chinese music of, except worse. piano doesn't ring nicely either. i'm really not a big fan. not sure what they're on about of how awesome it is, but forgotten, or equal temperamaent not sounding better even after conditioning. i beg to differ, and greatly. if what i tried is just intonation, i can't stand it, and couldn't stand any music created with it. very unpleasant. almost like screaching fingernails on a blackboard. out of all the tunings the WER III is almost playable, Kirn II too, I don't know what Valotti is supposed to be, but actually i liked that one, even made stretch sound out of tune somehow, made stretch sound more like pure when i switched to it i think the F chord is particularly nice in that tuning, but the other keys don't seem way off. maybe it's equal temperament with slight bias to F scale? idk, but that one is pretty good actually. only tried it on its own without other instruments though. Young tuning is similar but i think biased on different chords like C major, and G minor. it's hard to say though cause everything is kind of relative. weird, i kind of wish i hadn't done that though, because now equal tempereament doesn't sound as perfect as it used to somehow, which kind of really sucks.

03-11-2010, 10:33 PM	#18
fingerpikingood Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 863	ya there must be, i just didn't read them. the pure one seemed wrong in every key. the ones that sounded pretty good to me, definitely seemed as though they must have been key dependent, but they are subtle, i didn't try many keys, just played with them real quick, noticed some chords sounded better than others, and then when i went to equal temperament, noticed for the first time, how everything was soundign a bit off. kind of sucky thing to notice.

03-12-2010, 08:24 PM	#19
fingerpikingood Registered User Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 863	I still don't find these tests are particularly well designed, but for the tone deaf one, which doesn't actually test tone deafness, i got 86.1% and for the image one, i got 85% which is a completely useless test. the guy talks about some other kind of "intelligence" which is somehow a trap that alot of psychologists, have fallen into. naming all sorts of things intelligence, as though intelligence were synonymous with aptitude. but anyways, 86.1% and 85%, for what it's worth which isn't much. the first test was good. simple and tested a human ability accurately, all the others were unscientific. or they tested ability to do those tests just fine, but as far as why, and what abilities a human has that completes them well. these tests leave much to be desired.