User talk:Grady/Harmonic similarity: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I saw what you wrote in about tritaves working better as equivalences than fifths, but my thought is that such a phenomenon mainly holds true for the same reason that perfect unisons and perfect octaves differ- of course, it should go without saying that we can't divide the perfect unison into smaller segments, because two notes "separated" by a perfect unison are exactly identical. Any thoughts on this idea? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC) | I saw what you wrote in about tritaves working better as equivalences than fifths, but my thought is that such a phenomenon mainly holds true for the same reason that perfect unisons and perfect octaves differ- of course, it should go without saying that we can't divide the perfect unison into smaller segments, because two notes "separated" by a perfect unison are exactly identical. Any thoughts on this idea? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC) | ||
To put this into another theory, I'd say that the dissimilarity introduced by successive octaves- assuming both that such octaves are perfectly tuned and that | To put this into another theory, I'd say that the dissimilarity introduced by successive octaves- assuming both that such octaves are perfectly tuned, and, that our ears and audial neural networks were perfect- is not of the same type as the dissimilarity introduced by successive tritaves. To this end, I think my concept of pitch hue really does play a role in this, but, I don't know if I've articulated the whole concept to you before. We'll have to talk in DMs on Discord to hash this out. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC) | ||