Talk:Porcupine family: Difference between revisions

(23 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 34:

::::::: One should be able to compare porcupine with e.g. septimal meantone, magic, or sensi. Not adopting the 7-limit makes that difficult. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 14:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: How is it difficult to compare 2.3.5.11 porcupine to 2.3.5.7 meantone?

:::::::: '''Similarities:'''

:::::::: * Porcupine and meantone are both mildly inaccurate

:::::::: * Both porcupine and meantone tend to tune 5/4 sharp

:::::::: * Porcupine and meantone both equate a pair of adjacent superparticular whole-tones

:::::::: * Porcupine and meantone both generate 7-note MOSes

:::::::: * Both porcupine and meantone have a badness of around 0.01.

:::::::: '''Differences:'''

:::::::: * Porcupine is generated by 11/10, while meantone is diatonic

:::::::: * Porcupine exaggerates the syntonic comma to a chromatic semitone, while meantone tempers it out

:::::::: * Porcupine naturally extends to 2.3.5.11, while meantone naturally extends to 2.3.5.7

:::::::: * Porcupine's three odd primes are found adjacent to each other and near +0 gens, while meantone's require significant stacking to reach (especially 7) -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 02:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: The similarities and differences you listed are from properties of 5-limit porcupine and 5-limit meantone. "Porcupine is generated by 11/10, while meantone is diatonic" is pointless, cuz of course two temps are ''in general'' generated by different gens, and you can write 11/10 as 10/9.

::::::::: "Both porcupine and meantone have a badness of around 0.01" makes absolutely no sense. It's a mistake to use Smith's badness metric across subgroups. Sintel's Dirichlet badness is the first true attempt of inter-subgroup badness comparison, but even that isn't perfect. 7 and 11 are inherently different primes, so they have different utilities and tendencies. That's why I said to meaningful compare temps they need to be tempering of the same subgroup.

::::::::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::: Okay, but why is "comparing temperaments" in that manner the chief purpose for this? Porcupine and meantone are different systems, and one likely chooses porcupine and then proceeds to work in 2.3.5.11, or chooses meantone and then proceeds to work in 2.3.5.7. -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 17:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::: Let me tell you again. 2.3.5.11-subgroup porcupine is ''right there'' and no one's saying you shouldn't use it. But meanwhile 7-limit JI is as musically relevant as the 2.3.5.11 subgroup if not more, and one gets septimal porcupine and meantone simply by tempering 7-limit JI. Your assessment of likelihood is biased, possibly becuz you have little experience with JI. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::: But we're talking about porcupine, not JI. We're documenting this temp as a coherent structure. -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 19:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Yes we are. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: Okay, if you agree with me, then why try to characterize porcupine chiefly as a tempering of JI rather than as a self-standing system with JI "labels" for intervals? -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 18:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Becuz temps are of JI by definition. They ''are'' coherent and self-standing systems. They're not just infinite scales with JI labels -- it's not a crime to think about them like that, but that's more of a scale-centric, JI-agnostic approach which isn't what we're doing in this ''middle path''. To put it simply, if you don't care about JI, don't come for RTT. Go edit the JI interpretations in the mos pages and you're welcome. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

== Rename of tridecimal porcupine ==

I've suggested some of these names in the wiki channel on Discord, but it got buried under other discussion:

- porcupinefowl (the opposite of fish, from "neither fish nor fowl")

- equisuperparticular porcupine (from equating 13/12 through 10/9 equally)

- s-porcupine or sporcupine (from tempering out consecutive s-expressions) --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 06:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

: I like "porcupinefowl". It's the most memorable and intuitive imo. Good work on the names :) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Thanks! I also like "porcupinefowl" the best, except that negri has a similar equisuperparticular extension and it might be good for them to have similar names. Thus if it were up to me, I'd go with s-porcupine and s-negri. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 07:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::: I am happy to go with s-porcupine :) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 08:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

: I don't like ''s-porcupine'' and ''s-negri''. For the most obvious thing they start with "s" so they break the alphabetic order. ''Porcupinefowl'' is alright, and going this lane we might even have ''negrifowl''. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Alphabetic order? Why is that significant? -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 19:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Becuz at the level of rank-3 13-limit we expect the names of the extensions to look/sound similar to the 11-limit version. For example the other three extensions of porcupine all start with the ''pork'' sound which is a pattern we wanna follow if there's no reasons for going otherwise. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:: If we rename ''negri'' to ''negrifowl'', we could also have the current "Negroni" (the best 2.3.5.7.13 negri extension to the full 13-limit by Cangwu badness) becoming ''negrifish'' I suppose. Negrifish also has the property that its tuning accuracy greatly improves when prime 3 is removed. (I know it's a bit strange to talk about negri on the porcupine page, but this question is relevant to the naming of porcupine.) --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 15:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::: Just to be clear, we're not renaming core negri itself to negrifowl, right? Only one of its extensions? --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 08:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

== "Sharp of 8d-edo"? ==

While I get that the order of sharpness here refers to the 3/2, I don't get why. 3/2 isn't especially important to porcupine. I mean sure, it's a consonance, but it's -3 generators.

I think it makes more sense to talk about how sharp a tuning is based on the sharpness of the generator, rather than the sharpness of -3 of them, so I'd call opossum (generator around 160c) flatter than porky (generator around 164c), rather than sharper.

: Makes sense, tho I think it's best to follow ploidacot specs. Since porcupine is omega-tricot it's prolly best to base the sharpness of tunings on 4/3 (and thus the ~11/10 generator) rather than 3/2. In most cases however, 3/2 should be preferred over 4/3. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ::::::: One should be able to compare porcupine with e.g. septimal meantone, magic, or sensi. Not adopting the 7-limit makes that difficult. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 14:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
+:::::::: How is it difficult to compare 2.3.5.11 porcupine to 2.3.5.7 meantone?
+:::::::: '''Similarities:'''
+:::::::: * Porcupine and meantone are both mildly inaccurate
+:::::::: * Both porcupine and meantone tend to tune 5/4 sharp
+:::::::: * Porcupine and meantone both equate a pair of adjacent superparticular whole-tones
+:::::::: * Porcupine and meantone both generate 7-note MOSes
+:::::::: * Both porcupine and meantone have a badness of around 0.01.
+:::::::: '''Differences:'''
+:::::::: * Porcupine is generated by 11/10, while meantone is diatonic
+:::::::: * Porcupine exaggerates the syntonic comma to a chromatic semitone, while meantone tempers it out
+:::::::: * Porcupine naturally extends to 2.3.5.11, while meantone naturally extends to 2.3.5.7
+:::::::: * Porcupine's three odd primes are found adjacent to each other and near +0 gens, while meantone's require significant stacking to reach (especially 7) -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 02:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
+::::::::: The similarities and differences you listed are from properties of 5-limit porcupine and 5-limit meantone. "Porcupine is generated by 11/10, while meantone is diatonic" is pointless, cuz of course two temps are ''in general'' generated by different gens, and you can write 11/10 as 10/9.
+::::::::: "Both porcupine and meantone have a badness of around 0.01" makes absolutely no sense. It's a mistake to use Smith's badness metric across subgroups. Sintel's Dirichlet badness is the first true attempt of inter-subgroup badness comparison, but even that isn't perfect. 7 and 11 are inherently different primes, so they have different utilities and tendencies. That's why I said to meaningful compare temps they need to be tempering of the same subgroup.
+::::::::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
+:::::::::: Okay, but why is "comparing temperaments" in that manner the chief purpose for this? Porcupine and meantone are different systems, and one likely chooses porcupine and then proceeds to work in 2.3.5.11, or chooses meantone and then proceeds to work in 2.3.5.7. -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 17:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
+::::::::::: Let me tell you again. 2.3.5.11-subgroup porcupine is ''right there'' and no one's saying you shouldn't use it. But meanwhile 7-limit JI is as musically relevant as the 2.3.5.11 subgroup if not more, and one gets septimal porcupine and meantone simply by tempering 7-limit JI. Your assessment of likelihood is biased, possibly becuz you have little experience with JI. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
+:::::::::::: But we're talking about porcupine, not JI. We're documenting this temp as a coherent structure. -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 19:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: Yes we are. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::: Okay, if you agree with me, then why try to characterize porcupine chiefly as a tempering of JI rather than as a self-standing system with JI "labels" for intervals? -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 18:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::: Becuz temps are of JI by definition. They ''are'' coherent and self-standing systems. They're not just infinite scales with JI labels -- it's not a crime to think about them like that, but that's more of a scale-centric, JI-agnostic approach which isn't what we're doing in this ''middle path''. To put it simply, if you don't care about JI, don't come for RTT. Go edit the JI interpretations in the mos pages and you're welcome. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
+== Rename of tridecimal porcupine ==
+I've suggested some of these names in the wiki channel on Discord, but it got buried under other discussion:
+- porcupinefowl (the opposite of fish, from "neither fish nor fowl")
+- equisuperparticular porcupine (from equating 13/12 through 10/9 equally)
+- s-porcupine or sporcupine (from tempering out consecutive s-expressions) --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 06:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
+: I like "porcupinefowl". It's the most memorable and intuitive imo. Good work on the names :) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
+:: Thanks! I also like "porcupinefowl" the best, except that negri has a similar equisuperparticular extension and it might be good for them to have similar names. Thus if it were up to me, I'd go with s-porcupine and s-negri. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 07:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
+::: I am happy to go with s-porcupine :) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 08:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
+: I don't like ''s-porcupine'' and ''s-negri''. For the most obvious thing they start with "s" so they break the alphabetic order. ''Porcupinefowl'' is alright, and going this lane we might even have ''negrifowl''. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
+:: Alphabetic order? Why is that significant? -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 19:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
+::: Becuz at the level of rank-3 13-limit we expect the names of the extensions to look/sound similar to the 11-limit version. For example the other three extensions of porcupine all start with the ''pork'' sound which is a pattern we wanna follow if there's no reasons for going otherwise. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
+:: If we rename ''negri'' to ''negrifowl'', we could also have the current "Negroni" (the best 2.3.5.7.13 negri extension to the full 13-limit by Cangwu badness) becoming ''negrifish'' I suppose. Negrifish also has the property that its tuning accuracy greatly improves when prime 3 is removed. (I know it's a bit strange to talk about negri on the porcupine page, but this question is relevant to the naming of porcupine.) --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 15:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
+::: Just to be clear, we're not renaming core negri itself to negrifowl, right? Only one of its extensions? --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 08:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
+== "Sharp of 8d-edo"? ==
+While I get that the order of sharpness here refers to the 3/2, I don't get why. 3/2 isn't especially important to porcupine. I mean sure, it's a consonance, but it's -3 generators.
+I think it makes more sense to talk about how sharp a tuning is based on the sharpness of the generator, rather than the sharpness of -3 of them, so I'd call opossum (generator around 160c) flatter than porky (generator around 164c), rather than sharper.
+: Makes sense, tho I think it's best to follow ploidacot specs. Since porcupine is omega-tricot it's prolly best to base the sharpness of tunings on 4/3 (and thus the ~11/10 generator) rather than 3/2. In most cases however, 3/2 should be preferred over 4/3. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)