https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Talk%3ATable_of_612edo_intervals%2FWikispacesArchiveTalk:Table of 612edo intervals/WikispacesArchive - Revision history2026-07-09T12:27:17ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.43.6https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Table_of_612edo_intervals/WikispacesArchive&diff=34968&oldid=prevMike Battaglia: 1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage2018-10-01T18:01:49Z<p>1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage</p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 18:01, 1 October 2018</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-notice" lang="en"><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div>
</td></tr></table>Mike Battagliahttps://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Table_of_612edo_intervals/WikispacesArchive&diff=34967&oldid=prevWikispaces>FREEZE at 18:01, 1 October 20182018-10-01T18:01:16Z<p></p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{WSArchiveHeader}}<br />
<br />
<br />
== Typographical change ==<br />
In the first rows, I marked the specifically new ratios that result from the limit increment. I found that gives this table a "face" - what do you think?<br />
<br />
- '''xenwolf''' January 31, 2012, 12:25:29 AM UTC-0800<br />
----<br />
I don't care either way.<br />
<br />
- '''keenanpepper''' January 31, 2012, 01:23:24 AM UTC-0800<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Intervals shown are too complex ==<br />
For example, why is 77 steps given as 67108864/61509375 in the 11 limit, rather than 12/11?<br />
<br />
- '''keenanpepper''' January 30, 2012, 01:03:33 AM UTC-0800<br />
----<br />
My pocket calculated results are that from 77\612,<br />
<br />
<ul><li>the complex interval differs by 7.342 ct612</li><li>the simple interval has a distance of 17,51 ct612</li></ul>(ct612 is the relative cent of 612edo == 1\61200 == pow(2, 1/61200))<br />
<br />
...of course, in 612edo, the 12/11 ratio is approximated best by 77\612.<br />
<br />
- '''xenwolf''' January 30, 2012, 01:48:57 AM UTC-0800<br />
----<br />
Yeah, I know the 612 table is not very good, but I never got around to fixing the reduction routine and thereby fixing the table.<br />
<br />
- '''genewardsmith''' January 30, 2012, 09:59:30 AM UTC-0800<br />
----<br />
489 of the 612 11-limit intervals appear in the third-order 11-limit diamond: that is, in diamond(diamond(diamond([1,3,5,7,9,11]))). I'm computing the fourth-order diamond now. This might serve as a basis for a better table.<br />
<br />
- '''genewardsmith''' January 30, 2012, 11:11:54 AM UTC-0800<br />
----<br />
Computing the fourth-order diamond was taking too long. The product of the diamond with the third order diamond gives 609 intervals, which should suffice for starters. The five-limit fourth order diamond was easy to compute, and that gives 608 intervals. So I think I can get this done in this manner.<br />
<br />
- '''genewardsmith''' January 30, 2012, 12:17:49 PM UTC-0800<br />
----<br />
Looking much better!<br />
<br />
- '''keenanpepper''' January 30, 2012, 07:51:38 PM UTC-0800<br />
----<br />
Looking much better!<br />
<br />
- '''keenanpepper''' January 30, 2012, 07:51:39 PM UTC-0800<br />
----<br />
What about adding distances or (some kind of) degree of accuracy?<br />
<br />
- '''xenwolf''' January 31, 2012, 12:16:20 AM UTC-0800<br />
----</div>Wikispaces>FREEZE