User talk:UnbihexiumFan/Temperaments - Revision history

UnbihexiumFan: signature

2026-02-09T02:51:10Z

signature

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:51, 9 February 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	The major third is actually further away from 24/19 than 5/4, so that interpretation probably wouldn't be more plausible. What do you think about this?--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 19:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)		The major third is actually further away from 24/19 than 5/4, so that interpretation probably wouldn't be more plausible. What do you think about this?--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 19:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

	: You're right. What I meant was that mapping the major third to [[24/19]] would make it so that the resulting tuning would be "better" than mapping it to [[5/4]] would be (gives better approximations of intervals like [[9/7]] and [[7/6]]). The other reasonable approximation for [[5/4]] is sesquiaugmented second, which is a worse 5/4 than the major third for most EDOs that support it (except for 31edo where they are the same), but using that one gives better [[5/3]]s and [[9/5]]s. Would it be better to say it approximates other intervals better than to say that it is too sharp/flat?		: You're right. What I meant was that mapping the major third to [[24/19]] would make it so that the resulting tuning would be "better" than mapping it to [[5/4]] would be (gives better approximations of intervals like [[9/7]] and [[7/6]]). The other reasonable approximation for [[5/4]] is sesquiaugmented second, which is a worse 5/4 than the major third for most EDOs that support it (except for 31edo where they are the same), but using that one gives better [[5/3]]s and [[9/5]]s. Would it be better to say it approximates other intervals better than to say that it is too sharp/flat? [[User:UnbihexiumFan\|UnbihexiumFan]] ([[User talk:UnbihexiumFan\|talk]]) 02:51, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

UnbihexiumFan at 02:51, 9 February 2026

2026-02-09T02:51:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:51, 9 February 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
	The major third is actually further away from 24/19 than 5/4, so that interpretation probably wouldn't be more plausible. What do you think about this?--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 19:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)		The major third is actually further away from 24/19 than 5/4, so that interpretation probably wouldn't be more plausible. What do you think about this?--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 19:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

			: You're right. What I meant was that mapping the major third to [[24/19]] would make it so that the resulting tuning would be "better" than mapping it to [[5/4]] would be (gives better approximations of intervals like [[9/7]] and [[7/6]]). The other reasonable approximation for [[5/4]] is sesquiaugmented second, which is a worse 5/4 than the major third for most EDOs that support it (except for 31edo where they are the same), but using that one gives better [[5/3]]s and [[9/5]]s. Would it be better to say it approximates other intervals better than to say that it is too sharp/flat?

Overthink: /* Plausibility of interpretation */ new section

2026-02-08T19:27:31Z

Plausibility of interpretation: new section

New page

== Plausibility of interpretation ==

In the "243/242+2079/2048-based temperaments" section, you wrote:
<blockquote>
While the major third is too sharp to be seen as [[5/4]], it can be seen as [[24/19]] or [[64/51]].
</blockquote>
The major third is actually further away from 24/19 than 5/4, so that interpretation probably wouldn't be more plausible. What do you think about this?--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 19:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)