Talk:Chromatic pairs - Revision history

Dummy index: /* Chromatic pairs or chromatic triples? */

2024-11-20T14:57:14Z

Chromatic pairs or chromatic triples?

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 20 November 2024
Line 39:		Line 39:
	::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)		::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
	:::: Adopting the definition (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic) reinforces the position that they are a pair rather than a triple, because haplotonic is not necessarily the direct parent of albitonic, and multiple albitonic-chromatic pairs will share the same haplotonic. Extreme case: (1L)+(1L 2s)=(3L 1s), (1L)+(1L 6s)=(7L 1s), ... Known case: (2L 3s)+(5L 2s)=(5a 7b), (2L 3s)+(5L 7s)=(5a 12b), ... --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)		:::: Adopting the definition (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic) reinforces the position that they are a pair rather than a triple, because haplotonic is not necessarily the direct parent of albitonic, and multiple albitonic-chromatic pairs will share the same haplotonic. Extreme case: (1L)+(1L 2s)=(3L 1s), (1L)+(1L 6s)=(7L 1s), ... Known case: (2L 3s)+(5L 2s)=(5a 7b), (2L 3s)+(5L 7s)=(5a 12b), ... --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::: On Barton example, for the 5/7/9/11/13-note scale we are interested in, the equations to be taken up would be 2+5=7 or 2+7=9. In other words, Barton[2] is positioned as haplotonic. Why don't we call Barton[5] mini-albitonic? --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 13:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)		:::: On Barton example, for the 5/7/9/11/13-note scale we are interested in, the equations to be taken up would be 2+5=7 or 2+7=9 or 2+9=11. In other words, Barton[2] is positioned as haplotonic. Why don't we call Barton[5] mini-albitonic? --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 13:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::: If we take haplotonic roughly to mean "semitone-free MOS", then only Barton[2] can be haplotonic for Barton. --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Huxley ==		== Huxley ==

Dummy index: /* Chromatic pairs or chromatic triples? */

2024-11-19T13:16:26Z

Chromatic pairs or chromatic triples?

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 19 November 2024
Line 39:		Line 39:
	::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)		::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
	:::: Adopting the definition (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic) reinforces the position that they are a pair rather than a triple, because haplotonic is not necessarily the direct parent of albitonic, and multiple albitonic-chromatic pairs will share the same haplotonic. Extreme case: (1L)+(1L 2s)=(3L 1s), (1L)+(1L 6s)=(7L 1s), ... Known case: (2L 3s)+(5L 2s)=(5a 7b), (2L 3s)+(5L 7s)=(5a 12b), ... --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)		:::: Adopting the definition (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic) reinforces the position that they are a pair rather than a triple, because haplotonic is not necessarily the direct parent of albitonic, and multiple albitonic-chromatic pairs will share the same haplotonic. Extreme case: (1L)+(1L 2s)=(3L 1s), (1L)+(1L 6s)=(7L 1s), ... Known case: (2L 3s)+(5L 2s)=(5a 7b), (2L 3s)+(5L 7s)=(5a 12b), ... --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::: On Barton example, for the 5/7/9/11/13 scale we are interested in, the equations to be taken up would be 2+5=7 or 2+7=9. In other words, Barton[2] is positioned as haplotonic. Why don't we call Barton[5] mini-albitonic? --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 13:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)		:::: On Barton example, for the 5/7/9/11/13-note scale we are interested in, the equations to be taken up would be 2+5=7 or 2+7=9. In other words, Barton[2] is positioned as haplotonic. Why don't we call Barton[5] mini-albitonic? --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 13:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Huxley ==		== Huxley ==

Dummy index: /* Chromatic pairs or chromatic triples? */

2024-11-19T13:11:38Z

Chromatic pairs or chromatic triples?

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 19 November 2024
Line 39:		Line 39:
	::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)		::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
	:::: Adopting the definition (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic) reinforces the position that they are a pair rather than a triple, because haplotonic is not necessarily the direct parent of albitonic, and multiple albitonic-chromatic pairs will share the same haplotonic. Extreme case: (1L)+(1L 2s)=(3L 1s), (1L)+(1L 6s)=(7L 1s), ... Known case: (2L 3s)+(5L 2s)=(5a 7b), (2L 3s)+(5L 7s)=(5a 12b), ... --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)		:::: Adopting the definition (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic) reinforces the position that they are a pair rather than a triple, because haplotonic is not necessarily the direct parent of albitonic, and multiple albitonic-chromatic pairs will share the same haplotonic. Extreme case: (1L)+(1L 2s)=(3L 1s), (1L)+(1L 6s)=(7L 1s), ... Known case: (2L 3s)+(5L 2s)=(5a 7b), (2L 3s)+(5L 7s)=(5a 12b), ... --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::: On Barton example, for the 5/7/9/11/13 scale we are interested in, the equations to be taken up would be 2+5=7 or 2+7=9. In other words, Barton[2] is positioned as haplotonic. Why don't we call Barton[5] mini-albitonic? --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 13:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Huxley ==		== Huxley ==

Dummy index: /* Chromatic pairs or chromatic triples? */ re

2024-11-18T15:40:53Z

Chromatic pairs or chromatic triples?: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:40, 18 November 2024
Line 38:		Line 38:
	::: Sorry, I might not have been clear, I didn't mean to imply that these 4 assumptions were Ganaram inukshuk's; rather, they are most likely Gene Ward Smith's, assuming he's the one to have come up with the terms ''albitonic'' an such (although I think ''haplotonic'' came later), and I'm stating them as general properties one is likely to generalize out of the diatonic scale in general.		::: Sorry, I might not have been clear, I didn't mean to imply that these 4 assumptions were Ganaram inukshuk's; rather, they are most likely Gene Ward Smith's, assuming he's the one to have come up with the terms ''albitonic'' an such (although I think ''haplotonic'' came later), and I'm stating them as general properties one is likely to generalize out of the diatonic scale in general.
	::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)		::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
			:::: Adopting the definition (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic) reinforces the position that they are a pair rather than a triple, because haplotonic is not necessarily the direct parent of albitonic, and multiple albitonic-chromatic pairs will share the same haplotonic. Extreme case: (1L)+(1L 2s)=(3L 1s), (1L)+(1L 6s)=(7L 1s), ... Known case: (2L 3s)+(5L 2s)=(5a 7b), (2L 3s)+(5L 7s)=(5a 12b), ... --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Huxley ==		== Huxley ==

BudjarnLambeth: /* Huxley */ Search has concluded, positive outcome

2024-09-28T03:45:51Z

Huxley: Search has concluded, positive outcome

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:45, 28 September 2024
Line 65:		Line 65:

	::: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)		::: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

			:::: The original discoverer of Huxley temperament - [[Deja Igliashon]] - saw my post on Facebook, and said the following:

			:::: “''Hi Budjarn Lambeth, this temperament is one I discovered. It's an extension of Lovecraft, which is the 9&13 (edit: whoops, 4p&13p, not 9&13!) 2.11.13 subgroup temperament where two 13/11's stack to reach 11/8. Lovecraft itself is a restriction of 13-limit Orwell down to the 2.11.13 subgroup IIRC*. Huxley extends Lovecraft to add prime 3 in a different mapping than Orwell, specifically -6 generators. I mainly encountered it via 17edo. The extensions to include prime 5 or prime 7 thus aren't very good, but it's a very nice 2.3.11.13 temperament and 17edo is pretty close to optimal for it IIRC.''

			:::: ''*Edit: nope, I was wrong about the Orwell connection! 13-limit Orwell has a different mapping for 13. Lovecraft actually has no real relationship to Orwell except that both have moments of symmetry at 4, 9, and 13-note scales and are generated by a subminor 3rd tuned a bit sharp of 7/6. Lovecraft's 13-note MOS is 4L9s, while Orwell's is 9L4s. Huxley follows Lovecraft's MOS sequence. Gods, but I'm rusty at this stuff!''”

			:::: They then went on to write a page for the wiki about Huxley:

			:::: “''I have created a very rudimentary version of the page. I may come back and add more to it later, but probably not; the xenwiki is really not my project. TBH it's probably the most potentially-useful temperament that I personally discovered! It also works in 21edo where it more meaningfully extends to the full 13-limit and connects with Delorean temperament. But it's really better to leave prime 5 out of its extensions, IMO. Getting prime 7 into the mix is a lot easier and I'm actually kind of surprised I didn't include it when I named it originally. It maps so easily to -5 generators and that doesn't even increase the error all that much.''”

			:::: This is about the best possible outcome I could have hoped for! A huge thank you to Deja and to everyone else who helped throughout this whole process. I’m glad this temperament won’t be lost to time.

			:::: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 03:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Huxley */

2024-09-24T08:13:48Z

Huxley

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:13, 24 September 2024
Line 62:		Line 62:
	::: '''Ville-Pekka Turpeinen''': "''Judging by the name it appears to be riffing on Orwell by having a sharper 7/6 that gives 4/3 with six generators instead of Orwell's 7 generators of 3/2. According to Xen Wiki revision history, that name has been there as long as some pages have existed, which indicates that it comes from some earlier documentation that precedes the wiki itself.''"		::: '''Ville-Pekka Turpeinen''': "''Judging by the name it appears to be riffing on Orwell by having a sharper 7/6 that gives 4/3 with six generators instead of Orwell's 7 generators of 3/2. According to Xen Wiki revision history, that name has been there as long as some pages have existed, which indicates that it comes from some earlier documentation that precedes the wiki itself.''"

	::: Also very noteworthy is this archived discussion on the wiki from 2011. It seems that even by that point, what "Huxley" referred to exactly had been forgotten. But it does appear to be almost identical (or completely identical) to [[Lovecraft]]. But it might have been different in its mapping of 5 or 7 or something. Still gotta try to figure that out: ~~[[Talk~~:~~Map of linear temperaments/WikispacesArchive#Lovecraft and Huxley]].~~ --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)		::: Also very noteworthy is this archived discussion on the wiki from 2011: [[Talk:Map of linear temperaments/WikispacesArchive#Lovecraft and Huxley]]. It seems that even by that point, what "Huxley" referred to exactly had been forgotten. But it does appear to be almost identical (or completely identical) to [[Lovecraft]]. But it might have been different in its mapping of 5 or 7 or something. Still gotta try to figure that out.

			::: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Huxley */

2024-09-24T08:12:28Z

Huxley

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:12, 24 September 2024
Line 58:		Line 58:
	::: Just an update to share with everyone. I'm continuing to research this. Here are some things that have been noted by people on the XA Facebook:		::: Just an update to share with everyone. I'm continuing to research this. Here are some things that have been noted by people on the XA Facebook:

	::: '''Steve Martin''': "Hi Bud, I can't find a definition of Huxley (it is not in Graham's database afaics), I'll look at the numbers when I get a chance. Orwell has 8/5 from 3 generators, and a 4s9L mos, whereas garibertet (not heard of it before) has 5/3 from 3 generators, and a 4L9s mos, so there are some differences."		::: '''Steve Martin''': "''Hi Bud, I can't find a definition of Huxley (it is not in Graham's database afaics), I'll look at the numbers when I get a chance. Orwell has 8/5 from 3 generators, and a 4s9L mos, whereas garibertet (not heard of it before) has 5/3 from 3 generators, and a 4L9s mos, so there are some differences.''"

	::: '''Ville-Pekka Turpeinen''' Judging by the name it appears to be riffing on Orwell by having a sharper 7/6 that gives 4/3 with six generators instead of Orwell's 7 generators of 3/2. According to Xen Wiki revision history, that name has been there as long as some pages have existed, which indicates that it comes from some earlier documentation that precedes the wiki itself.		::: '''Ville-Pekka Turpeinen''': "''Judging by the name it appears to be riffing on Orwell by having a sharper 7/6 that gives 4/3 with six generators instead of Orwell's 7 generators of 3/2. According to Xen Wiki revision history, that name has been there as long as some pages have existed, which indicates that it comes from some earlier documentation that precedes the wiki itself.''"

	::: Also very noteworthy is this archived discussion on the wiki from 2011. It seems that even by that point, what "Huxley" referred to exactly had been forgotten. But it does appear to be almost identical (or completely identical) to [[Lovecraft]]. But it might have been different in its mapping of 5 or 7 or something. Still gotta try to figure that out: [[Talk:Map of linear temperaments/WikispacesArchive#Lovecraft and Huxley]]. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)		::: Also very noteworthy is this archived discussion on the wiki from 2011. It seems that even by that point, what "Huxley" referred to exactly had been forgotten. But it does appear to be almost identical (or completely identical) to [[Lovecraft]]. But it might have been different in its mapping of 5 or 7 or something. Still gotta try to figure that out: [[Talk:Map of linear temperaments/WikispacesArchive#Lovecraft and Huxley]]. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Huxley */

2024-09-24T08:12:02Z

Huxley

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:12, 24 September 2024
Line 60:		Line 60:
	::: '''Steve Martin''': "Hi Bud, I can't find a definition of Huxley (it is not in Graham's database afaics), I'll look at the numbers when I get a chance. Orwell has 8/5 from 3 generators, and a 4s9L mos, whereas garibertet (not heard of it before) has 5/3 from 3 generators, and a 4L9s mos, so there are some differences."		::: '''Steve Martin''': "Hi Bud, I can't find a definition of Huxley (it is not in Graham's database afaics), I'll look at the numbers when I get a chance. Orwell has 8/5 from 3 generators, and a 4s9L mos, whereas garibertet (not heard of it before) has 5/3 from 3 generators, and a 4L9s mos, so there are some differences."

	::: '''Ville-Pekka Turpeinen''' Judging by the name it appears to be riffing on Orwell by having a sharper 7/6 that gives 4/3 with six generators instead of Orwell's 7 generators of 3/2.		::: '''Ville-Pekka Turpeinen''' Judging by the name it appears to be riffing on Orwell by having a sharper 7/6 that gives 4/3 with six generators instead of Orwell's 7 generators of 3/2. According to Xen Wiki revision history, that name has been there as long as some pages have existed, which indicates that it comes from some earlier documentation that precedes the wiki itself.
	According to Xen Wiki revision history, that name has been there as long as some pages have existed, which indicates that it comes from some earlier documentation that precedes the wiki itself.

	::: Also very noteworthy is this archived discussion on the wiki from 2011. It seems that even by that point, what "Huxley" referred to exactly had been forgotten. But it does appear to be almost identical (or completely identical) to [[Lovecraft]]. But it might have been different in its mapping of 5 or 7 or something. Still gotta try to figure that out: [[Talk:Map of linear temperaments/WikispacesArchive#Lovecraft and Huxley]]. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)		::: Also very noteworthy is this archived discussion on the wiki from 2011. It seems that even by that point, what "Huxley" referred to exactly had been forgotten. But it does appear to be almost identical (or completely identical) to [[Lovecraft]]. But it might have been different in its mapping of 5 or 7 or something. Still gotta try to figure that out: [[Talk:Map of linear temperaments/WikispacesArchive#Lovecraft and Huxley]]. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Huxley */ Update on progress

2024-09-24T08:11:48Z

Huxley: Update on progress

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:11, 24 September 2024
Line 55:		Line 55:

	:: Unfortunately I couldn't find anything about Huxley temperament in any of the files (I used Spotlight to search them). I did find mentions of "Huxley", but they were all talking about his book, Brave New World, not about the temperament. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)		:: Unfortunately I couldn't find anything about Huxley temperament in any of the files (I used Spotlight to search them). I did find mentions of "Huxley", but they were all talking about his book, Brave New World, not about the temperament. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

			::: Just an update to share with everyone. I'm continuing to research this. Here are some things that have been noted by people on the XA Facebook:

			::: '''Steve Martin''': "Hi Bud, I can't find a definition of Huxley (it is not in Graham's database afaics), I'll look at the numbers when I get a chance. Orwell has 8/5 from 3 generators, and a 4s9L mos, whereas garibertet (not heard of it before) has 5/3 from 3 generators, and a 4L9s mos, so there are some differences."

			::: '''Ville-Pekka Turpeinen''' Judging by the name it appears to be riffing on Orwell by having a sharper 7/6 that gives 4/3 with six generators instead of Orwell's 7 generators of 3/2.
			According to Xen Wiki revision history, that name has been there as long as some pages have existed, which indicates that it comes from some earlier documentation that precedes the wiki itself.

			::: Also very noteworthy is this archived discussion on the wiki from 2011. It seems that even by that point, what "Huxley" referred to exactly had been forgotten. But it does appear to be almost identical (or completely identical) to [[Lovecraft]]. But it might have been different in its mapping of 5 or 7 or something. Still gotta try to figure that out: [[Talk:Map of linear temperaments/WikispacesArchive#Lovecraft and Huxley]]. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* Huxley */ Update on the search

2024-09-20T08:30:51Z

Huxley: Update on the search

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:30, 20 September 2024
Line 51:		Line 51:

	: Have you tried searching the Yahoo Groups tuning list archives? https://github.com/YahooTuningGroupsUltimateBackup/YahooTuningGroupsUltimateBackup --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)		: Have you tried searching the Yahoo Groups tuning list archives? https://github.com/YahooTuningGroupsUltimateBackup/YahooTuningGroupsUltimateBackup --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

			:: Thank you for the recommendation, that was a very good idea. It will be a helpful resource when I'm looking for things in the future :)

			:: Unfortunately I couldn't find anything about Huxley temperament in any of the files (I used Spotlight to search them). I did find mentions of "Huxley", but they were all talking about his book, Brave New World, not about the temperament. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 08:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, 20 November 2024
Line 39:		Line 39:
	::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)		::: Anyway, I believe it's important to keep in mind that another way to think of "albitonic" is "what scale should go on the white keys of a piano-like keyboard", and similarly "haplotonic" describes the scale that goes on the black keys, such that the combination of all keys is the corresponding chromatic scale. In the porcupine example, you would use 1L 6s for haplotonic (7 notes), 7L 1s for albitonic (8 notes) and 7L 8s for chromatic (15 notes). This corresponds to the usual porcupine keyboard layout. I think the structure of decomposing a chromatic scale in two subscales is more important, especially since it is actually possible to preserve that property integrally, while the number of notes is fated to fall outside of the usual 5/7/12-note forms, so I don't think we should try to enforce it artificially. In fact, the 3rd assumption, which ensures that the chromatic scale's size is equal to the sum of the other two scales' sizes, could be used to solve otherwise weird cases, such as Barton, which would be decomposed as 11+13=24 instead of 5/7/11, even though it's very tempting to treat 5 and 7 as haplotonic and albitonic respectively; it wouldn't make sense to me to try building a piano-like layout with scales of size 5/7/11, but 11+13 would be an almost trivial generalization of the diatonic layout. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 02:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
	:::: Adopting the definition (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic) reinforces the position that they are a pair rather than a triple, because haplotonic is not necessarily the direct parent of albitonic, and multiple albitonic-chromatic pairs will share the same haplotonic. Extreme case: (1L)+(1L 2s)=(3L 1s), (1L)+(1L 6s)=(7L 1s), ... Known case: (2L 3s)+(5L 2s)=(5a 7b), (2L 3s)+(5L 7s)=(5a 12b), ... --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)		:::: Adopting the definition (haplotonic) + (albitonic) = (chromatic) reinforces the position that they are a pair rather than a triple, because haplotonic is not necessarily the direct parent of albitonic, and multiple albitonic-chromatic pairs will share the same haplotonic. Extreme case: (1L)+(1L 2s)=(3L 1s), (1L)+(1L 6s)=(7L 1s), ... Known case: (2L 3s)+(5L 2s)=(5a 7b), (2L 3s)+(5L 7s)=(5a 12b), ... --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::: On Barton example, for the 5/7/9/11/13-note scale we are interested in, the equations to be taken up would be 2+5=7 or 2+7=9. In other words, Barton[2] is positioned as haplotonic. Why don't we call Barton[5] mini-albitonic? --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 13:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)		:::: On Barton example, for the 5/7/9/11/13-note scale we are interested in, the equations to be taken up would be 2+5=7 or 2+7=9 or 2+9=11. In other words, Barton[2] is positioned as haplotonic. Why don't we call Barton[5] mini-albitonic? --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 13:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::: If we take haplotonic roughly to mean "semitone-free MOS", then only Barton[2] can be haplotonic for Barton. --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

	== Huxley ==		== Huxley ==