User talk:Cmloegcmluin/APS - Revision history

BudjarnLambeth: BudjarnLambeth moved page Talk:APS to User talk:Cmloegcmluin/APS: Merge w equal step tuning but in the manner described by Cmlo on talk page

2025-05-19T01:39:54Z

BudjarnLambeth moved page Talk:APS to User talk:Cmloegcmluin/APS: Merge w equal step tuning but in the manner described by Cmlo on talk page

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:39, 19 May 2025
(No difference)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Merge */

2025-05-18T19:01:42Z

Merge

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:01, 18 May 2025
Line 49:		Line 49:

	This page can be merged with [[equal-step tuning]]. – [[User:Sintel\|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 17:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)		This page can be merged with [[equal-step tuning]]. – [[User:Sintel\|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 17:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

			: I've made the same point on several discussion pages now. These pages are part of a family of pages in a system of arithmetic tunings. Yes, they are all equal step. I am fine with merging if it's done like this: https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Talk:EPD&action=edit&section=1 --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Sintel: /* Merge */ forgot to sign

2025-05-18T17:05:10Z

Merge: forgot to sign

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 18 May 2025
Line 48:		Line 48:
	== Merge ==		== Merge ==

	This page can be merged with [[equal-step tuning]].		This page can be merged with [[equal-step tuning]]. – [[User:Sintel\|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 17:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Sintel: merge

2025-05-18T17:04:55Z

merge

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:04, 18 May 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:

	:::: Wunderbar. It's done. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)		:::: Wunderbar. It's done. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

			== Merge ==

			This page can be merged with [[equal-step tuning]].

Cmloegcmluin: /* How to use the example table */

2023-10-19T20:37:21Z

How to use the example table

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 19 October 2023
Line 43:		Line 43:

	::: Sounds great. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 07:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)		::: Sounds great. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 07:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

			:::: Wunderbar. It's done. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

FloraC: re

2023-10-18T07:40:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:40, 18 October 2023
Line 19:		Line 19:

	: Oh dang, good catch! I clearly wasn't paying careful enough attention to what I was doing when I wrote this page back then. I suppose if even I found myself specifying APS by frequency ratios, I should imagine that others in the wild will do this too. And I see your point that because of the presence or absence of units, there is no ambiguity caused by allowing both. But yes, we'd need to acknowledge this in the page. I support it. Feel free to make the changes yourself, or if you'd rather I take care of it, I'm happy to. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)		: Oh dang, good catch! I clearly wasn't paying careful enough attention to what I was doing when I wrote this page back then. I suppose if even I found myself specifying APS by frequency ratios, I should imagine that others in the wild will do this too. And I see your point that because of the presence or absence of units, there is no ambiguity caused by allowing both. But yes, we'd need to acknowledge this in the page. I support it. Feel free to make the changes yourself, or if you'd rather I take care of it, I'm happy to. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

			:: I'll make the changes myself, then. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 07:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

	== How to use the example table ==		== How to use the example table ==
Line 39:		Line 41:
	: One advantage of this is that we consolidate the units into the row headers, rather than putting 'oct' into each cell of that row, which would clutter it. What do you think? If you agree, I volunteer to make the changes across all the tables, since that will be pretty tedious, and it's a problem I created in the first place. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)		: One advantage of this is that we consolidate the units into the row headers, rather than putting 'oct' into each cell of that row, which would clutter it. What do you think? If you agree, I volunteer to make the changes across all the tables, since that will be pretty tedious, and it's a problem I created in the first place. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
	:: I agree with the proposed changes. [[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 21:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)		:: I agree with the proposed changes. [[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 21:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

			::: Sounds great. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 07:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Fredg999: /* How to use the example table */ re

2023-10-17T21:16:42Z

How to use the example table: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:16, 17 October 2023
Line 38:		Line 38:
	:* length → length (ratio)		:* length → length (ratio)
	: One advantage of this is that we consolidate the units into the row headers, rather than putting 'oct' into each cell of that row, which would clutter it. What do you think? If you agree, I volunteer to make the changes across all the tables, since that will be pretty tedious, and it's a problem I created in the first place. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)		: One advantage of this is that we consolidate the units into the row headers, rather than putting 'oct' into each cell of that row, which would clutter it. What do you think? If you agree, I volunteer to make the changes across all the tables, since that will be pretty tedious, and it's a problem I created in the first place. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
			:: I agree with the proposed changes. [[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 21:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin at 17:20, 17 October 2023

2023-10-17T17:20:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 17 October 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:

	[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)		[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

			: Oh dang, good catch! I clearly wasn't paying careful enough attention to what I was doing when I wrote this page back then. I suppose if even I found myself specifying APS by frequency ratios, I should imagine that others in the wild will do this too. And I see your point that because of the presence or absence of units, there is no ambiguity caused by allowing both. But yes, we'd need to acknowledge this in the page. I support it. Feel free to make the changes yourself, or if you'd rather I take care of it, I'm happy to. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

	== How to use the example table ==		== How to use the example table ==
Line 29:		Line 31:

	[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)		[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

			: Yikes. I screwed up the middle row of this table. If I had done it correctly and consistently with how I did the tables on all the other arithmetic tuning pages (OD, EFD, OS, AFS, EPD, AS, UD, ELD, US, ALS), that row would simply be 0/4, 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4. So I've made that change already. Thanks for catching that.
			: I prefer the simplicity of frequency/pitch/length which are fundamentals of this naming system, i.e. I'd rather not introduce the term "size" here. But the point you've raised about how pitch requires units while frequency and length do not (being ratios of whichever unit to the same unit, canceling out) is very compelling. So I suggest something like this:
			:* frequency → frequency (ratio)
			:* pitch → pitch (octaves)
			:* length → length (ratio)
			: One advantage of this is that we consolidate the units into the row headers, rather than putting 'oct' into each cell of that row, which would clutter it. What do you think? If you agree, I volunteer to make the changes across all the tables, since that will be pretty tedious, and it's a problem I created in the first place. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

FloraC: /* How to use the example table */

2023-10-14T11:02:37Z

How to use the example table

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:02, 14 October 2023
Line 26:		Line 26:
	* pitch → size		* pitch → size
	* length → length ratio		* length → length ratio
	And then the "~~step~~ size" row can show the pitch relations, that is, 0/4 oct, 1/4 oct, 2/4 oct, 3/4 oct, 4/4 oct.		And then the "size" row can show the pitch relations, that is, 0/4 oct, 1/4 oct, 2/4 oct, 3/4 oct, 4/4 oct.

	[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)		[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

FloraC: /* How to use the example table */ new section

2023-10-14T11:00:33Z

How to use the example table: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:00, 14 October 2023
Line 17:		Line 17:

	[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)		[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

			== How to use the example table ==

			I'm much confused by the table in the "examples" section. The first row is labeled "frequency (''f'')", whose entries are 1, 1.19, 1.41, 1.68, 2, and that's perfectly clear to me. Now the second row is labeled "pitch (log<sub>2</sub>''f'')", and the entries, in terms of contents, are identical to those in the first row. So I wondered, maybe these are the ''f'' which should be plugged to log<sub>2</sub>''f''? That gives you the correct pitch relations. But interpreting them this way leads to inconsistent results in the third row. The entries in this row are 1, 0.84, 0.71, 0.59, 0.5, which are clearly lengths, and not meant to be the ''f'' as is plugged to 1/''f''.

			I suggest the following changes:
			* frequency → frequency ratio
			* pitch → size
			* length → length ratio
			And then the "step size" row can show the pitch relations, that is, 0/4 oct, 1/4 oct, 2/4 oct, 3/4 oct, 4/4 oct.

			[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)