User talk:Aura/Aura's Diatonic Scales: Difference between revisions
signing my reply |
No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| 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) | ||
::::::: 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) | |||
== 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)--[[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) | |||