Talk:Equal-step tuning - Revision history

FloraC at 09:58, 28 October 2025

2025-10-28T09:58:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:58, 28 October 2025
Line 42:		Line 42:

	--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)		--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

			: Certainly idiosyncratic. Moreover I don't think they belong to this article. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth at 01:25, 28 October 2025

2025-10-28T01:25:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:25, 28 October 2025
Line 39:		Line 39:
	If it's original research, it might be worth using the <nowiki>{{Idiosyncratic terms}}</nowiki> mbox. I'm also not sure if the main equal step tuning page is the best place for it either or whether it should have its own dedicated page and just be linked from the main equal step tuning page.		If it's original research, it might be worth using the <nowiki>{{Idiosyncratic terms}}</nowiki> mbox. I'm also not sure if the main equal step tuning page is the best place for it either or whether it should have its own dedicated page and just be linked from the main equal step tuning page.

	If it's already a well established concept though, then it seems reasonable to include it on this page.		If it's already a well established concept used by multiple theorists though, then it seems reasonable to include it on this page.

	--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)		--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: Ask about "Alpha-beta-gamma family of equal divisions"

2025-10-28T01:21:32Z

Ask about "Alpha-beta-gamma family of equal divisions"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 28 October 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:

	--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 00:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 00:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

			== "Alpha-beta-gamma family of equal divisions" ==
			What is this about?

			Is this an already established concept? If so it might be helpful to add a citation or link to previous authors discussing it.

			If it's original research, it might be worth using the <nowiki>{{Idiosyncratic terms}}</nowiki> mbox. I'm also not sure if the main equal step tuning page is the best place for it either or whether it should have its own dedicated page and just be linked from the main equal step tuning page.

			If it's already a well established concept though, then it seems reasonable to include it on this page.

			--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 01:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Fredg999: /* Consolidate ed-degrees pages */ Remove link to deleted page

2025-08-01T18:52:06Z

Consolidate ed-degrees pages: Remove link to deleted page

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 1 August 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:
	The degree is related to certain scales and not a concretely defined interval. The only widely recognized degree–ratio correlations are the octave (2/1), the fifth (3/2) and the fourth (4/3). All the others should be named by the exact ratio. For example, it is unclear what interval edX exactly splits. The ratio that makes the most logical sense would be either 81/32 or 5/2, yet in the article it is defined as 7/3. I suggest moving this page to ed7/3. Likewise, all the others except for edo, edt, and edf. Now I also suggest moving edf to ed3/2, since both ''fifth'' and ''fourth'' has the initial ''f'' and one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 23:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)		The degree is related to certain scales and not a concretely defined interval. The only widely recognized degree–ratio correlations are the octave (2/1), the fifth (3/2) and the fourth (4/3). All the others should be named by the exact ratio. For example, it is unclear what interval edX exactly splits. The ratio that makes the most logical sense would be either 81/32 or 5/2, yet in the article it is defined as 7/3. I suggest moving this page to ed7/3. Likewise, all the others except for edo, edt, and edf. Now I also suggest moving edf to ed3/2, since both ''fifth'' and ''fourth'' has the initial ''f'' and one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 23:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

	: I agree with everything except the final point. I think [[EDF\|edf]] as equal divisions of the fifth is already well established (e.g. [[9edf]] redirects to [[Carlos Alpha]]), while equal divisions of the fourth (currently in [[edIV]]) are very scarcely used. I understand your concern when you say "one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth", but I don't think people should even guess the meaning of an acronym; they will learn that 'f' stands for "fifth", which makes sense because it is the simplest interval between 3/2 and 4/3. For that matter, some people write ed2 even though edo is relatively unambiguous, so I'd rather make it clear what edf means for those who choose to use it. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 01:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)		: I agree with everything except the final point. I think [[EDF\|edf]] as equal divisions of the fifth is already well established (e.g. [[9edf]] redirects to [[Carlos Alpha]]), while equal divisions of the fourth (currently in "edIV") are very scarcely used. I understand your concern when you say "one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth", but I don't think people should even guess the meaning of an acronym; they will learn that 'f' stands for "fifth", which makes sense because it is the simplest interval between 3/2 and 4/3. For that matter, some people write ed2 even though edo is relatively unambiguous, so I'd rather make it clear what edf means for those who choose to use it. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 01:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

	:: Agree with this. edIV should just be ed4/3 though. The edX page is actually so ridiculous I thought it was satirizing the wiki. - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 02:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)		:: Agree with this. edIV should just be ed4/3 though. The edX page is actually so ridiculous I thought it was satirizing the wiki. - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 02:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: Priority (linked from main page intro)

2025-04-22T04:37:12Z

Priority (linked from main page intro)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:37, 22 April 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{High priority}}
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}

BudjarnLambeth: /* Bulk-editing the MMTM pages */ Asked whether I should add ED intro, Harmonics in Equal & Interval Table to MMTM’s stub pages?

2024-09-30T21:33:40Z

Bulk-editing the MMTM pages: Asked whether I should add ED intro, Harmonics in Equal & Interval Table to MMTM’s stub pages?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 30 September 2024
Line 21:		Line 21:
	A while back, Moremajorthanmajor made almost 500 pages for equal step tunings, which contained nothing except Infobox ET. Since then, we have marked them as stubs, but otherwise left them unchanged.		A while back, Moremajorthanmajor made almost 500 pages for equal step tunings, which contained nothing except Infobox ET. Since then, we have marked them as stubs, but otherwise left them unchanged.

	I’m thinking that I would like add ED Intro ~~and~~ Harmonics in Equal to each of those pages.		I’m thinking that I would like add ED Intro, Harmonics in Equal and Interval Table to each of those pages.

	It wouldn’t fix the problem - they’d all still be stubs - but it would at least be a bit of a band aid to make the pages a bit more presentable.		It wouldn’t fix the problem - they’d all still be stubs - but it would at least be a bit of a band aid to make the pages a bit more presentable.

BudjarnLambeth: Asked whether I should edit MMTM’s equal tuning pages

2024-09-28T00:29:33Z

Asked whether I should edit MMTM’s equal tuning pages

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:29, 28 September 2024
Line 16:		Line 16:

	I'd like to see a description about the benefits of tuning the temperaments to Equal-step tunings, somewhere from there to here. I feel like there was something like that somewhere.--[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)		I'd like to see a description about the benefits of tuning the temperaments to Equal-step tunings, somewhere from there to here. I feel like there was something like that somewhere.--[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

			== Bulk-editing the MMTM pages ==

			A while back, Moremajorthanmajor made almost 500 pages for equal step tunings, which contained nothing except Infobox ET. Since then, we have marked them as stubs, but otherwise left them unchanged.

			I’m thinking that I would like add ED Intro and Harmonics in Equal to each of those pages.

			It wouldn’t fix the problem - they’d all still be stubs - but it would at least be a bit of a band aid to make the pages a bit more presentable.

			If I did this, I would mark all the edits as minor, to make it easy to filter them out of recent changes.

			Do you think this is a good idea, or would you rather I not do that?

			--[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 00:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Dummy index: /* EDO tunings of some regular temperaments */ new section

2024-04-20T14:45:56Z

EDO tunings of some regular temperaments: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:45, 20 April 2024
Line 10:		Line 10:

	::: Alright, let's do it. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)		::: Alright, let's do it. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

			== EDO tunings of some regular temperaments ==

			Optimal ET sequence → Equal tuning (redirect) → Equal-step tuning (here)

			I'd like to see a description about the benefits of tuning the temperaments to Equal-step tunings, somewhere from there to here. I feel like there was something like that somewhere.--[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

FloraC: re

2021-12-31T13:14:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:14, 31 December 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:: Agree with this. edIV should just be ed4/3 though. The edX page is actually so ridiculous I thought it was satirizing the wiki. - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 02:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)		:: Agree with this. edIV should just be ed4/3 though. The edX page is actually so ridiculous I thought it was satirizing the wiki. - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 02:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

			::: Alright, let's do it. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Sintel at 02:22, 31 December 2021

2021-12-31T02:22:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:22, 31 December 2021
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: I agree with everything except the final point. I think [[EDF\|edf]] as equal divisions of the fifth is already well established (e.g. [[9edf]] redirects to [[Carlos Alpha]]), while equal divisions of the fourth (currently in [[edIV]]) are very scarcely used. I understand your concern when you say "one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth", but I don't think people should even guess the meaning of an acronym; they will learn that 'f' stands for "fifth", which makes sense because it is the simplest interval between 3/2 and 4/3. For that matter, some people write ed2 even though edo is relatively unambiguous, so I'd rather make it clear what edf means for those who choose to use it. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 01:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)		: I agree with everything except the final point. I think [[EDF\|edf]] as equal divisions of the fifth is already well established (e.g. [[9edf]] redirects to [[Carlos Alpha]]), while equal divisions of the fourth (currently in [[edIV]]) are very scarcely used. I understand your concern when you say "one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth", but I don't think people should even guess the meaning of an acronym; they will learn that 'f' stands for "fifth", which makes sense because it is the simplest interval between 3/2 and 4/3. For that matter, some people write ed2 even though edo is relatively unambiguous, so I'd rather make it clear what edf means for those who choose to use it. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 01:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

			:: Agree with this. edIV should just be ed4/3 though. The edX page is actually so ridiculous I thought it was satirizing the wiki. - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 02:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 1 August 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:
	The degree is related to certain scales and not a concretely defined interval. The only widely recognized degree–ratio correlations are the octave (2/1), the fifth (3/2) and the fourth (4/3). All the others should be named by the exact ratio. For example, it is unclear what interval edX exactly splits. The ratio that makes the most logical sense would be either 81/32 or 5/2, yet in the article it is defined as 7/3. I suggest moving this page to ed7/3. Likewise, all the others except for edo, edt, and edf. Now I also suggest moving edf to ed3/2, since both ''fifth'' and ''fourth'' has the initial ''f'' and one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 23:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)		The degree is related to certain scales and not a concretely defined interval. The only widely recognized degree–ratio correlations are the octave (2/1), the fifth (3/2) and the fourth (4/3). All the others should be named by the exact ratio. For example, it is unclear what interval edX exactly splits. The ratio that makes the most logical sense would be either 81/32 or 5/2, yet in the article it is defined as 7/3. I suggest moving this page to ed7/3. Likewise, all the others except for edo, edt, and edf. Now I also suggest moving edf to ed3/2, since both ''fifth'' and ''fourth'' has the initial ''f'' and one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 23:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

	: I agree with everything except the final point. I think [[EDF\|edf]] as equal divisions of the fifth is already well established (e.g. [[9edf]] redirects to [[Carlos Alpha]]), while equal divisions of the fourth (currently in [[edIV]]) are very scarcely used. I understand your concern when you say "one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth", but I don't think people should even guess the meaning of an acronym; they will learn that 'f' stands for "fifth", which makes sense because it is the simplest interval between 3/2 and 4/3. For that matter, some people write ed2 even though edo is relatively unambiguous, so I'd rather make it clear what edf means for those who choose to use it. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 01:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)		: I agree with everything except the final point. I think [[EDF\|edf]] as equal divisions of the fifth is already well established (e.g. [[9edf]] redirects to [[Carlos Alpha]]), while equal divisions of the fourth (currently in "edIV") are very scarcely used. I understand your concern when you say "one cannot tell by the name if it's fifth or fourth", but I don't think people should even guess the meaning of an acronym; they will learn that 'f' stands for "fifth", which makes sense because it is the simplest interval between 3/2 and 4/3. For that matter, some people write ed2 even though edo is relatively unambiguous, so I'd rather make it clear what edf means for those who choose to use it. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 01:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

	:: Agree with this. edIV should just be ed4/3 though. The edX page is actually so ridiculous I thought it was satirizing the wiki. - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 02:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)		:: Agree with this. edIV should just be ed4/3 though. The edX page is actually so ridiculous I thought it was satirizing the wiki. - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 02:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)