Talk:Dyadic chord - Revision history

FloraC at 10:51, 9 May 2026

2026-05-09T10:51:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:51, 9 May 2026
Line 12:		Line 12:
	I can't keep a straight face whilst looking at this section, I'm too childish I may admit, but it's kind of an unfortunate acronym. I propose it to be renamed to something like AnSaS or related.		I can't keep a straight face whilst looking at this section, I'm too childish I may admit, but it's kind of an unfortunate acronym. I propose it to be renamed to something like AnSaS or related.

	: I don't share that feeling but maybe that's becuz English isn't my first language. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 06:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)		: <s>I don't share that feeling but maybe that's becuz English isn't my first language.</s> I use ''saturated suspension'', omitting ''anomalous'' cuz I don't think it conveys anything. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 06:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC) (Updated [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC))

	: <small>P.S. plz remember to sign your comment with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>.</small>		: <small>P.S. plz remember to sign your comment with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>.</small>
Line 20:		Line 20:

	: These are actually plurichords that change their o/u-tonality on different interpretations. I would suggest marking them as both otonal/utonal, which is a meaningful distinction to make from ambitonal. Perhaps it's also good to explicitly mark their plurichord nature and the associated temperaments, if we can find a way to do so. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 06:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)		: These are actually plurichords that change their o/u-tonality on different interpretations. I would suggest marking them as both otonal/utonal, which is a meaningful distinction to make from ambitonal. Perhaps it's also good to explicitly mark their plurichord nature and the associated temperaments, if we can find a way to do so. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 06:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

			== Det chord vs innate comma chord ==
			For cataloguing chords of specific temperaments, this distinction is pointless. I have no idea why it was made in these tables in the first place.

			The definition of innate comma chords seems problematic, as it's not clear how it's more specific than ordinary high-odd-limit chords.

			—[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

FloraC: Re

2025-12-14T06:40:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:40, 14 December 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:

	== Query on mention of 36/35 -- is 36/25 meant? ==		== Query on mention of 36/35 -- is 36/25 meant? ==

	There are references to 36/35 and 10/7 differing by 126/125, the starling comma. Could this mean 36/25, or (6/5)^2? [[User:Mschulter1325\|Mschulter1325]] 07:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)		There are references to 36/35 and 10/7 differing by 126/125, the starling comma. Could this mean 36/25, or (6/5)^2? [[User:Mschulter1325\|Mschulter1325]] 07:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Line 8:		Line 7:

	== Move to "dyadically consonant chord" ==		== Move to "dyadically consonant chord" ==

	To me, "dyadic chord" most intuitively means "chord that is a dyad".		To me, "dyadic chord" most intuitively means "chord that is a dyad".

	== On anomalous saturated suspensions ==		== On anomalous saturated suspensions ==
			I can't keep a straight face whilst looking at this section, I'm too childish I may admit, but it's kind of an unfortunate acronym. I propose it to be renamed to something like AnSaS or related.

	I ~~can~~'t ~~keep a straight face whilst looking at this section, I'm too childish I may admit,~~ but it's ~~kind of an unfortunate acronym~~. ~~I propose it to be renamed~~ to ~~something like AnSaS or related~~.		: I don't share that feeling but maybe that's becuz English isn't my first language. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 06:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

			: <small>P.S. plz remember to sign your comment with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>.</small>

	== Chord classification ==		== Chord classification ==
			Some temperaments temper out commas that lead chords which otherwise come in otonal-utonal pairs to become neutralized, such as 7:8:9 and 9:10:11 in superpyth. In [[Chords of huygens]], the neutralized 8:9:10 and 11:14:18 chords are both classified as otonal, while in [[Chords of mohajira]], the neutralized 10:11:12 chord is classified as utonal. I believe this is based on the transversal, as the 8:9:10, 11:14:18, and 10:11:12 chords are generated as 1-9/8-5/4, 1-14/9-11/9, and 1-20/11-5/3 respectively. However, classifying these chords as otonal or utonal is misleading, so there should be a convention; perhaps ambitonal, or another term entirely.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 23:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

	~~Some temperaments temper out commas that lead chords which otherwise come in otonal-utonal pairs to become neutralized, such as 7:8:9 and 9~~:~~10:11 in superpyth. In [[Chords of huygens]], the neutralized 8:9:10 and 11:14:18 chords~~ are both classified as otonal, while in [[Chords of mohajira]], the neutralized 10:11:12 chord is classified as utonal. I believe this is based on the transversal, as the 8:9:10, 11:14:18, and 10:11:12 chords are generated as 1-9/8-~~5/4, 1-14/9-11/9, and 1-20/11-5/3 respectively~~. ~~However, classifying these chords~~ as otonal or utonal is ~~misleading, so there should be~~ a ~~convention; perhaps~~ ambitonal, ~~or another term entirely~~.--[[User:~~Overthink~~\|~~Overthink~~]] ([[User talk:~~Overthink~~\|talk]]) 23:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)		: These are actually plurichords that change their o/u-tonality on different interpretations. I would suggest marking them as both otonal/utonal, which is a meaningful distinction to make from ambitonal. Perhaps it's also good to explicitly mark their plurichord nature and the associated temperaments, if we can find a way to do so. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 06:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Overthink: /* Chord classification */ new section

2025-12-13T23:17:58Z

Chord classification: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:17, 13 December 2025
Line 14:		Line 14:

	I can't keep a straight face whilst looking at this section, I'm too childish I may admit, but it's kind of an unfortunate acronym. I propose it to be renamed to something like AnSaS or related.		I can't keep a straight face whilst looking at this section, I'm too childish I may admit, but it's kind of an unfortunate acronym. I propose it to be renamed to something like AnSaS or related.

			== Chord classification ==

			Some temperaments temper out commas that lead chords which otherwise come in otonal-utonal pairs to become neutralized, such as 7:8:9 and 9:10:11 in superpyth. In [[Chords of huygens]], the neutralized 8:9:10 and 11:14:18 chords are both classified as otonal, while in [[Chords of mohajira]], the neutralized 10:11:12 chord is classified as utonal. I believe this is based on the transversal, as the 8:9:10, 11:14:18, and 10:11:12 chords are generated as 1-9/8-5/4, 1-14/9-11/9, and 1-20/11-5/3 respectively. However, classifying these chords as otonal or utonal is misleading, so there should be a convention; perhaps ambitonal, or another term entirely.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 23:17, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Eufalesio at 12:08, 25 November 2025

2025-11-25T12:08:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:08, 25 November 2025
Line 10:		Line 10:

	To me, "dyadic chord" most intuitively means "chord that is a dyad".		To me, "dyadic chord" most intuitively means "chord that is a dyad".

			== On anomalous saturated suspensions ==

			I can't keep a straight face whilst looking at this section, I'm too childish I may admit, but it's kind of an unfortunate acronym. I propose it to be renamed to something like AnSaS or related.

VectorGraphics: /* Move to "dyadically consonant chord" */ new section

2025-04-02T02:23:01Z

Move to "dyadically consonant chord": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:23, 2 April 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: Yeah, 36/25 and 10/7 differ by 126/125. I just checked in Wolfram Alpha. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 07:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)		: Yeah, 36/25 and 10/7 differ by 126/125. I just checked in Wolfram Alpha. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 07:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

			== Move to "dyadically consonant chord" ==

			To me, "dyadic chord" most intuitively means "chord that is a dyad".

Aura: /* Query on mention of 36/35 -- is 36/25 meant? */

2023-01-26T07:42:14Z

Query on mention of 36/35 -- is 36/25 meant?

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 26 January 2023
Line 4:		Line 4:

	There are references to 36/35 and 10/7 differing by 126/125, the starling comma. Could this mean 36/25, or (6/5)^2? [[User:Mschulter1325\|Mschulter1325]] 07:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)		There are references to 36/35 and 10/7 differing by 126/125, the starling comma. Could this mean 36/25, or (6/5)^2? [[User:Mschulter1325\|Mschulter1325]] 07:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

			: Yeah, 36/25 and 10/7 differ by 126/125. I just checked in Wolfram Alpha. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 07:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Mschulter1325: /* Query on mention of 36/35 -- is 36/25 meant? */ new section

2023-01-26T07:31:41Z

Query on mention of 36/35 -- is 36/25 meant?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:31, 26 January 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}

			== Query on mention of 36/35 -- is 36/25 meant? ==

			There are references to 36/35 and 10/7 differing by 126/125, the starling comma. Could this mean 36/25, or (6/5)^2? [[User:Mschulter1325\|Mschulter1325]] 07:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Mike Battaglia: 1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage

2018-10-01T18:02:35Z

1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:02, 1 October 2018
(No difference)

WikispacesArchive>Mike Battaglia: Text replacement - "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''" to "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.''' ''...

2018-10-01T18:01:16Z

Text replacement - "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''" to "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.''' <span style="color:#800000">''...

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:01, 1 October 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =~~		{{WSArchiveLink}}
	~~'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''~~

	~~<span style="color:#800000">'''PLEASE MAKE ANY NEW COMMENTS <u>ABOVE</u> THIS SECTION.'''</span> Anything below here is for archival purposes only.~~

	~~----~~

	~~== Equal Beating Tunings of Essentially Tempered Chords ==~~
	I've been recently spending quite a bit of time listening to these chords with the woodwinds section available in the latest Logic Express. When I reached the essentially tempered chords, realizing that they can't be tuned beatless, wondered if they could be tuned such that each interval has the same beat. Turns out in many cases they can, and have rational solutions. In my opinion they sound better this way. There's a fairly straightforward way of solving this for an arbitrary number of notes. Some of you probably already know of it.

	As a concrete example, the Marvel chord 1/1-5/4-7/5-14/9 can be tempered as 1/1-121/97-136/97-151/97. With 220 Hz as 1/1, all intervals will beat at about 2.3 Hz. That's calculated based on the idea that the ratio of each pair of fractions approximates 5/4, 9/8, 10/9, and 9/7 respectively.

	~~Is there already a page for an idea like this? If not, would someone please direct me to the best place to start one?~~

	~~- '''BryceHathaway''' November 06, 2015, 03:31:13 PM UTC-0800~~
	~~----~~

	~~== battaglia chord ==~~
	~~15-limit or 19-limit?~~

	~~- '''xenwolf''' October 19, 2011, 12:32:32 AM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~

	~~== hendrix chord ==~~
	~~is it 7-limit or 19-limit?~~

	~~- '''xenwolf''' October 19, 2011, 12:30:09 AM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~

	~~== interesting overview ==~~
	~~thank you, Gene :-)~~

	~~- '''xenwolf''' October 19, 2011, 12:21:49 AM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~

	~~== Orwell ==~~
	~~Are we sticking to only codimension 1 here? Because if not, 1/1-7/6-11/8-8/5 deserves a shoutout, perhaps even 1/1-7/6-11/8-8/5-15/8-11/10-9/7-3/2.~~

	~~Maybe in the future it would be nice to have a 2D table organizing everything by limit and codimension.~~

	~~- '''mbattaglia1''' September 17, 2011, 01:46:26 AM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~
	~~I forgot to add "orwell tetrad" to the list, though the page around for while.~~

	~~- '''genewardsmith''' September 17, 2011, 02:13:05 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~

Mike Battaglia: Text replacement - "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''" to "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.''' ''...

2018-09-20T07:00:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:00, 20 September 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =		= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =
	'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''		'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''

			<span style="color:#800000">'''PLEASE MAKE ANY NEW COMMENTS <u>ABOVE</u> THIS SECTION.'''</span> Anything below here is for archival purposes only.

	----		----