User:BudjarnLambeth/My opinion on zeta peak indexes - Revision history

BudjarnLambeth at 03:40, 16 August 2025

2025-08-16T03:40:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:40, 16 August 2025
Line 17:		Line 17:
	</div>		</div>

	I ''don't'' believe that zeta peak ~~indexes~~ are mathematically perfect, optimal equal ~~tunings~~. I don't think that there is anything especially about zeta peak indexes that sets them apart from any other stretched/compressed-octaves or stretched/compressed-tritaves tuning.		I ''don't'' believe that [[zeta peak index]]es are [[Optimization\|mathematically perfect]], optimal [[equal tuning]]s. I don't think that there is anything especially about zeta peak indexes that sets them apart from any other [[Stretched and compressed tuning\|stretched/compressed-octaves or stretched/compressed-tritaves tuning]].

	But I still really like zeta peak indexes, because they are ''good enough'' for me. They usually approximate most of the the most important ~~primes~~ better than their pure-octaves/pure-tritaves equivalent edo/edt, with very few downsides.		But I still really like zeta peak indexes, because they are ''good enough'' for me. They usually approximate most of the the most important [[prime]]s better than their pure-octaves/pure-tritaves equivalent [[edo]]/[[edt]], with very few downsides.

	This isn't because there's anything special about zeta peak indexes - any other method of slight equave stretching/compression would achieve exactly the same positive effects. Zeta peak indexes are probably not ''perfectly'' optimised.		This isn't because there's anything special about zeta peak indexes - any other method of slight [[equave]] stretching/compression would achieve exactly the same positive effects. Zeta peak indexes are probably not ''perfectly'' optimised.

	But I don't care about perfect, I care about good enough. They are a ''good enough'' improvement upon their edo/edt counterpart that I'm happy with them.		But I don't care about perfect, I care about good enough. They are a ''good enough'' improvement upon their edo/edt counterpart that I'm happy with them.

	And I like that they're very easy to name. It just looks so much cleaner to say "I used 127zpi for this track" rather than "I used 38.~~7cet~~" for this track. I like not having to just pick an arbitrary cents value.		And I like that they're very easy to name. It just looks so much cleaner to say "I used 127zpi for this track" rather than "I used 38.7[[APS\|cet]]" for this track. I like not having to just pick an arbitrary [[cents]] value.

	It's the same reason why I like using a big edo to tune a ~~regular~~ temperament: It's too hard having to choose between TOP and TE and POTE and WE and all of those. But if most of those agree that a particular edo is part of the temperament's optimal ET sequence, I'll just use that edo. I just like the simplicity of quantising to an edo, and I just can't be bothered fussing over hundredths of a cent.		It's the same reason why I like using a big edo to tune a [[rank-2 temperament]]: It's too hard having to choose between [[TOP]] and [[TE]] and [[POTE]] and [[WE]] and all of those. But if most of those agree that a particular edo is part of the temperament's [[optimal ET sequence]], I'll just use that edo. I just like the simplicity of quantising to an edo, and I just can't be bothered fussing over hundredths of a cent.

	So are zeta peak indexes special? No. Any other method of octave/tritave-stretch/compression works just as well.		So are zeta peak indexes special? No. Any other method of octave/tritave-stretch/compression works just as well.

BudjarnLambeth at 03:34, 16 August 2025

2025-08-16T03:34:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:34, 16 August 2025
Line 17:		Line 17:
	</div>		</div>

	I ''don't'' believe that zeta peak indexes are ~~the ''most''~~ mathematically perfect, optimal equal tunings ~~possible~~. I don't think that there is anything especially about zeta peak indexes that sets them apart from any other stretched/compressed-octaves or stretched/compressed-tritaves tuning.		I ''don't'' believe that zeta peak indexes are mathematically perfect, optimal equal tunings. I don't think that there is anything especially about zeta peak indexes that sets them apart from any other stretched/compressed-octaves or stretched/compressed-tritaves tuning.

	But I still really like zeta peak indexes, because they are ''good enough'' for me. They usually approximate most of the the most important primes better than their pure-octaves/pure-tritaves equivalent edo/edt, with very few downsides.		But I still really like zeta peak indexes, because they are ''good enough'' for me. They usually approximate most of the the most important primes better than their pure-octaves/pure-tritaves equivalent edo/edt, with very few downsides.

BudjarnLambeth: Created page with "
NEWSECTIONLINK ;(!!!) ;This is not a proper wiki page. It is NOT FACTUAL unlike the rest of the wiki, it is ONLY OPINION. ;The rest of the wiki is supposed to be 100% fact, 0% opinion. ;This page is the opposite. This page is 0% fact, 100% opinion. ;This page is only ever intended as a casual opinion column which never tries to..."

2025-08-16T03:34:10Z

Created page with "<div style="border: 1px green solid; background-color: #efe; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin-bottom: 1em"> __NEWSECTIONLINK__ ;(!!!) ;This is not a proper wiki page. It is NOT FACTUAL unlike the rest of the wiki, it is ONLY OPINION. ;The rest of the wiki is supposed to be 100% fact, 0% opinion. ;This page is the opposite. This page is 0% fact, 100% opinion. ;This page is only ever intended as a casual opinion column which never tries to..."

New page

<div style="border: 1px green solid; background-color: #efe; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin-bottom: 1em">
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
;(!!!)

;This is not a proper wiki page. It is NOT FACTUAL [[Xenharmonic Wiki:Five pillars|unlike the rest]] of the wiki, it is ONLY OPINION.

;The rest of the wiki is supposed to be 100% fact, 0% opinion.

;This page is the opposite. This page is 0% fact, 100% opinion.

;This page is only ever intended as a casual opinion column which never tries to be nor claims to be an encylopedic wiki article.

;This page is never intended to be moved to main space. Do not move it to main space. Keep it in user space.

;(!!!)
</div>

I ''don't'' believe that zeta peak indexes are the ''most'' mathematically perfect, optimal equal tunings possible. I don't think that there is anything especially about zeta peak indexes that sets them apart from any other stretched/compressed-octaves or stretched/compressed-tritaves tuning.

But I still really like zeta peak indexes, because they are ''good enough'' for me. They usually approximate most of the the most important primes better than their pure-octaves/pure-tritaves equivalent edo/edt, with very few downsides.

This isn't because there's anything special about zeta peak indexes - any other method of slight equave stretching/compression would achieve exactly the same positive effects. Zeta peak indexes are probably not ''perfectly'' optimised.

But I don't care about perfect, I care about good enough. They are a ''good enough'' improvement upon their edo/edt counterpart that I'm happy with them.

And I like that they're very easy to name. It just looks so much cleaner to say "I used 127zpi for this track" rather than "I used 38.7cet" for this track. I like not having to just pick an arbitrary cents value.

It's the same reason why I like using a big edo to tune a regular temperament: It's too hard having to choose between TOP and TE and POTE and WE and all of those. But if most of those agree that a particular edo is part of the temperament's optimal ET sequence, I'll just use that edo. I just like the simplicity of quantising to an edo, and I just can't be bothered fussing over hundredths of a cent.

So are zeta peak indexes special? No. Any other method of octave/tritave-stretch/compression works just as well.

But are they 'good enough'? Yes.

And do I still like them and want to use them? Yes.