User talk:Aura/Aura's Diatonic Scales: Difference between revisions
→Why 77/64?: new section |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| 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) | ||
: 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) | |||
::: Yes, exactly. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||