Talk:Subgroup temperaments: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
: And I believe they both must at least refer to version of the temperament in the standard domain basis. Possibly both "breed" and "breedsmic" could be used for the one in the nonstandard domain basis, too, in the same way we'd name any such temperament. But because this page already has a separate entry for the particular 2.3.49/5 version of this temperament, however, I don't think that's the right thing to do. This 2.3.49/7 temperament should have a different name. Perhaps we could model it after marveltri. I don't exactly understand the meaning of "tri" as a suffix; perhaps it refers to the shift from 3 to 9. So perhaps this would be "breedsept", on account of the shift from 7 → 49? Something like that, maybe. Like I said, though, I don't understand the "tri" so I defer to anyone who does, or anyone who has a better idea. If we can't come up with something, then "2.3.49/5 breed(smic)" works. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC) | : And I believe they both must at least refer to version of the temperament in the standard domain basis. Possibly both "breed" and "breedsmic" could be used for the one in the nonstandard domain basis, too, in the same way we'd name any such temperament. But because this page already has a separate entry for the particular 2.3.49/5 version of this temperament, however, I don't think that's the right thing to do. This 2.3.49/7 temperament should have a different name. Perhaps we could model it after marveltri. I don't exactly understand the meaning of "tri" as a suffix; perhaps it refers to the shift from 3 to 9. So perhaps this would be "breedsept", on account of the shift from 7 → 49? Something like that, maybe. Like I said, though, I don't understand the "tri" so I defer to anyone who does, or anyone who has a better idea. If we can't come up with something, then "2.3.49/5 breed(smic)" works. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
:: Thank you for supporting my ideas. I don't understand the suffix either. Besides "-tri" I also see "-tet". The only common thing among the "-tet" temps seems to be that they're all kinda supported by 4et. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Clarification needed == | |||
Why is there "clarification needed" on CTE generators of some 3/2-repeating temperaments? I had calculated the generators using sintel's temperament calculator so they should be correct. | |||
[[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 23:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
: There's the distinction of subgroup CTE vs inharmonic CTE for fractional subgroup temperaments. If you happen to know which scheme is used in sintel's calculator feel free to clarify. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 06:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: By comparing Sintel's calculator and x31eq, I have confirmed Sintel's calculator uses subgroup ''TE''. It is very likely Sintel's calculator is consistent in using subgroup tuning for both TE and CTE, but I cannot confirm this because x31eq does not show CTE. | |||
[[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 07:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: Alright. That's a good reason to believe it's subgroup CTE. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: Just want to confirm that the calculator indeed does subgroup TE for both cases. - [[User:Sintel|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel|talk]]) | |||