User talk:Aura/Aura's Diatonic Scales - Revision history

Aura at 19:09, 14 December 2024

2024-12-14T19:09:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 14 December 2024
Line 45:		Line 45:
	: I do indeed use Pythagorean 32/27 already, but in a different capacity, since it's not close enough to be substituted for 6/5. For an interval to be a proper substitute for 6/5, I do indeed need a smaller prime limit than 19, but more than that, I also need something that has a power of two in either the numerator or the denominator. As for simple ratios to other notes, 77/64 does indeed have a few, namely, it relates to 11/8 by 8/7 and it also relates to 7/4 by 16/11- granted, these are paradiatonic notes rather than diatonic notes, but all the same. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)		: I do indeed use Pythagorean 32/27 already, but in a different capacity, since it's not close enough to be substituted for 6/5. For an interval to be a proper substitute for 6/5, I do indeed need a smaller prime limit than 19, but more than that, I also need something that has a power of two in either the numerator or the denominator. As for simple ratios to other notes, 77/64 does indeed have a few, namely, it relates to 11/8 by 8/7 and it also relates to 7/4 by 16/11- granted, these are paradiatonic notes rather than diatonic notes, but all the same. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: So you want a near 6/5 but not exactly, that is, using a JI interval to approximate another? --[[User:Zhenlige\|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige\|talk]]) 08:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)		:: So you want a near 6/5 but not exactly, that is, using a JI interval to approximate another? --[[User:Zhenlige\|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige\|talk]]) 08:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: Yes, exactly. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Zhenlige: /* Why 77/64? */

2024-12-14T08:20:52Z

Why 77/64?

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:20, 14 December 2024
Line 44:		Line 44:

	: I do indeed use Pythagorean 32/27 already, but in a different capacity, since it's not close enough to be substituted for 6/5. For an interval to be a proper substitute for 6/5, I do indeed need a smaller prime limit than 19, but more than that, I also need something that has a power of two in either the numerator or the denominator. As for simple ratios to other notes, 77/64 does indeed have a few, namely, it relates to 11/8 by 8/7 and it also relates to 7/4 by 16/11- granted, these are paradiatonic notes rather than diatonic notes, but all the same. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)		: I do indeed use Pythagorean 32/27 already, but in a different capacity, since it's not close enough to be substituted for 6/5. For an interval to be a proper substitute for 6/5, I do indeed need a smaller prime limit than 19, but more than that, I also need something that has a power of two in either the numerator or the denominator. As for simple ratios to other notes, 77/64 does indeed have a few, namely, it relates to 11/8 by 8/7 and it also relates to 7/4 by 16/11- granted, these are paradiatonic notes rather than diatonic notes, but all the same. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
			:: So you want a near 6/5 but not exactly, that is, using a JI interval to approximate another? --[[User:Zhenlige\|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige\|talk]]) 08:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Aura at 17:26, 13 December 2024

2024-12-13T17:26:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:26, 13 December 2024
Line 42:		Line 42:

	Both the pythagorean 32/27 and 19/16 are simpler. Maybe for a smaller prime limit? It contains no simple ratios to other notes, so I don't understand the meaning for a smaller prime limit. (Sorry that English is not my native language, maybe my words are not proper)--[[User:Zhenlige\|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige\|talk]]) 12:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)		Both the pythagorean 32/27 and 19/16 are simpler. Maybe for a smaller prime limit? It contains no simple ratios to other notes, so I don't understand the meaning for a smaller prime limit. (Sorry that English is not my native language, maybe my words are not proper)--[[User:Zhenlige\|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige\|talk]]) 12:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

			: I do indeed use Pythagorean 32/27 already, but in a different capacity, since it's not close enough to be substituted for 6/5. For an interval to be a proper substitute for 6/5, I do indeed need a smaller prime limit than 19, but more than that, I also need something that has a power of two in either the numerator or the denominator. As for simple ratios to other notes, 77/64 does indeed have a few, namely, it relates to 11/8 by 8/7 and it also relates to 7/4 by 16/11- granted, these are paradiatonic notes rather than diatonic notes, but all the same. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Zhenlige: /* Why 77/64? */

2024-12-12T12:35:04Z

Why 77/64?

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 12 December 2024
Line 41:		Line 41:
	== Why 77/64? ==		== Why 77/64? ==

	Both the pythagorean 32/27 and 19/16 are simpler. Maybe for a smaller prime limit? It contains no simple ratios to other notes, so I don't understand the meaning for a smaller prime limit. (Sorry that English is not my native language, maybe my words are not proper)		Both the pythagorean 32/27 and 19/16 are simpler. Maybe for a smaller prime limit? It contains no simple ratios to other notes, so I don't understand the meaning for a smaller prime limit. (Sorry that English is not my native language, maybe my words are not proper)--[[User:Zhenlige\|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige\|talk]]) 12:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Zhenlige: /* Why 77/64? */ new section

2024-12-12T12:34:53Z

Why 77/64?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:34, 12 December 2024
Line 38:		Line 38:

	:::::::: I will say that 128/85 is useful as an alternate fifth in certain contexts, even though resolutions using it are not as complete as those offered by 3/2. Oh, and a good chunk of what determines when I'll get to 29-limit stuff proper is the pace at which I end up working out a few necessary things in lower limits. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 04:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)		:::::::: I will say that 128/85 is useful as an alternate fifth in certain contexts, even though resolutions using it are not as complete as those offered by 3/2. Oh, and a good chunk of what determines when I'll get to 29-limit stuff proper is the pace at which I end up working out a few necessary things in lower limits. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 04:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

			== Why 77/64? ==

			Both the pythagorean 32/27 and 19/16 are simpler. Maybe for a smaller prime limit? It contains no simple ratios to other notes, so I don't understand the meaning for a smaller prime limit. (Sorry that English is not my native language, maybe my words are not proper)

Aura at 04:54, 17 March 2021

2021-03-17T04:54:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:54, 17 March 2021
Line 36:		Line 36:

	::::::: I'm not exactly sure what you mean, since I don't know what exactly you use 128/85 for. Do you think you'll try get into 29 limit stuff based on the relationship between 116/77 and 128/85? --[[User:Userminusone\|Userminusone]] ([[User talk:Userminusone\|talk]]) 02:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)		::::::: I'm not exactly sure what you mean, since I don't know what exactly you use 128/85 for. Do you think you'll try get into 29 limit stuff based on the relationship between 116/77 and 128/85? --[[User:Userminusone\|Userminusone]] ([[User talk:Userminusone\|talk]]) 02:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

			:::::::: I will say that 128/85 is useful as an alternate fifth in certain contexts, even though resolutions using it are not as complete as those offered by 3/2. Oh, and a good chunk of what determines when I'll get to 29-limit stuff proper is the pace at which I end up working out a few necessary things in lower limits. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 04:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Userminusone: /* About minor thirds */

2021-03-17T02:08:33Z

About minor thirds

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:08, 17 March 2021
Line 35:		Line 35:
	:::::: Considering that 159edo is my favorite EDO, and since the 232/231 comma maps to a single step in 159edo, I'd say that 116/77 maps to about 94 steps in 159edo, and this puts 116/77 on roughly the same level as 128/85 in my book. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 01:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)		:::::: Considering that 159edo is my favorite EDO, and since the 232/231 comma maps to a single step in 159edo, I'd say that 116/77 maps to about 94 steps in 159edo, and this puts 116/77 on roughly the same level as 128/85 in my book. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 01:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

	::::::: I'm not exactly sure what you mean, since I don't know what exactly you use 128/85 for. Do you think you'll try get into 29 limit stuff based on the relationship between 116/77 and 128/85?		::::::: I'm not exactly sure what you mean, since I don't know what exactly you use 128/85 for. Do you think you'll try get into 29 limit stuff based on the relationship between 116/77 and 128/85? --[[User:Userminusone\|Userminusone]] ([[User talk:Userminusone\|talk]]) 02:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Userminusone: /* About minor thirds */

2021-03-17T02:06:46Z

About minor thirds

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:06, 17 March 2021
Line 34:		Line 34:

	:::::: Considering that 159edo is my favorite EDO, and since the 232/231 comma maps to a single step in 159edo, I'd say that 116/77 maps to about 94 steps in 159edo, and this puts 116/77 on roughly the same level as 128/85 in my book. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 01:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)		:::::: Considering that 159edo is my favorite EDO, and since the 232/231 comma maps to a single step in 159edo, I'd say that 116/77 maps to about 94 steps in 159edo, and this puts 116/77 on roughly the same level as 128/85 in my book. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 01:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

			::::::: I'm not exactly sure what you mean, since I don't know what exactly you use 128/85 for. Do you think you'll try get into 29 limit stuff based on the relationship between 116/77 and 128/85?

Aura at 01:29, 17 March 2021

2021-03-17T01:29:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:29, 17 March 2021
Line 33:		Line 33:
	::::: Taking this discussion even further, 116/77 is extremely close to the fifth of 22edo. Since 7edo has a very accurate 29/16, this means that 22*7 = 154edo has a very accurate 77/64. In addition, the difference between 116/77 and 3/2 is the 29 limit comma 232/231, which is similar in size to the marvel comma of 225/224. Any thoughts about this? --[[User:Userminusone\|Userminusone]] ([[User talk:Userminusone\|talk]]) 22:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)		::::: Taking this discussion even further, 116/77 is extremely close to the fifth of 22edo. Since 7edo has a very accurate 29/16, this means that 22*7 = 154edo has a very accurate 77/64. In addition, the difference between 116/77 and 3/2 is the 29 limit comma 232/231, which is similar in size to the marvel comma of 225/224. Any thoughts about this? --[[User:Userminusone\|Userminusone]] ([[User talk:Userminusone\|talk]]) 22:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

	:::::: Considering that 159edo is my favorite EDO, and since 232/231 comma maps to a single step in 159edo, I'd say that 116/77 maps to about 94 steps in 159edo, and this puts 116/77 on roughly the same level as 128/85 in my book. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 01:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)		:::::: Considering that 159edo is my favorite EDO, and since the 232/231 comma maps to a single step in 159edo, I'd say that 116/77 maps to about 94 steps in 159edo, and this puts 116/77 on roughly the same level as 128/85 in my book. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 01:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Aura: signing my reply

2021-03-17T01:29:27Z

signing my reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:29, 17 March 2021
Line 33:		Line 33:
	::::: Taking this discussion even further, 116/77 is extremely close to the fifth of 22edo. Since 7edo has a very accurate 29/16, this means that 22*7 = 154edo has a very accurate 77/64. In addition, the difference between 116/77 and 3/2 is the 29 limit comma 232/231, which is similar in size to the marvel comma of 225/224. Any thoughts about this? --[[User:Userminusone\|Userminusone]] ([[User talk:Userminusone\|talk]]) 22:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)		::::: Taking this discussion even further, 116/77 is extremely close to the fifth of 22edo. Since 7edo has a very accurate 29/16, this means that 22*7 = 154edo has a very accurate 77/64. In addition, the difference between 116/77 and 3/2 is the 29 limit comma 232/231, which is similar in size to the marvel comma of 225/224. Any thoughts about this? --[[User:Userminusone\|Userminusone]] ([[User talk:Userminusone\|talk]]) 22:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

	:::::: Considering that 159edo is my favorite EDO, and since 232/231 comma maps to a single step in 159edo, I'd say that 116/77 maps to about 94 steps in 159edo, and this puts 116/77 on roughly the same level as 128/85 in my book.		:::::: Considering that 159edo is my favorite EDO, and since 232/231 comma maps to a single step in 159edo, I'd say that 116/77 maps to about 94 steps in 159edo, and this puts 116/77 on roughly the same level as 128/85 in my book. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 01:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 14 December 2024
Line 45:		Line 45:
	: I do indeed use Pythagorean 32/27 already, but in a different capacity, since it's not close enough to be substituted for 6/5. For an interval to be a proper substitute for 6/5, I do indeed need a smaller prime limit than 19, but more than that, I also need something that has a power of two in either the numerator or the denominator. As for simple ratios to other notes, 77/64 does indeed have a few, namely, it relates to 11/8 by 8/7 and it also relates to 7/4 by 16/11- granted, these are paradiatonic notes rather than diatonic notes, but all the same. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)		: I do indeed use Pythagorean 32/27 already, but in a different capacity, since it's not close enough to be substituted for 6/5. For an interval to be a proper substitute for 6/5, I do indeed need a smaller prime limit than 19, but more than that, I also need something that has a power of two in either the numerator or the denominator. As for simple ratios to other notes, 77/64 does indeed have a few, namely, it relates to 11/8 by 8/7 and it also relates to 7/4 by 16/11- granted, these are paradiatonic notes rather than diatonic notes, but all the same. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 17:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: So you want a near 6/5 but not exactly, that is, using a JI interval to approximate another? --[[User:Zhenlige\|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige\|talk]]) 08:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)		:: So you want a near 6/5 but not exactly, that is, using a JI interval to approximate another? --[[User:Zhenlige\|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige\|talk]]) 08:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
			::: Yes, exactly. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)