User:BudjarnLambeth/My opinion on zeta peak indexes: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)

Line 17:

</div>

I ''don't'' believe that zeta peak ~~indexes~~ are ~~the ''most''~~ mathematically perfect, optimal equal ~~tunings possible~~. I don't think that there is anything especially about zeta peak indexes that sets them apart from any other stretched/compressed-octaves or stretched/compressed-tritaves tuning.

I ''don't'' believe that [[zeta peak index]]es are [[Optimization|mathematically perfect]], optimal [[equal tuning]]s. I don't think that there is anything especially about zeta peak indexes that sets them apart from any other [[Stretched and compressed tuning|stretched/compressed-octaves or stretched/compressed-tritaves tuning]].

But I still really like zeta peak indexes, because they are ''good enough'' for me. They usually approximate most of the the most important ~~primes~~ better than their pure-octaves/pure-tritaves equivalent edo/edt, with very few downsides.

But I still really like zeta peak indexes, because they are ''good enough'' for me. They usually approximate most of the the most important [[prime]]s better than their pure-octaves/pure-tritaves equivalent [[edo]]/[[edt]], with very few downsides.

This isn't because there's anything special about zeta peak indexes - any other method of slight equave stretching/compression would achieve exactly the same positive effects. Zeta peak indexes are probably not ''perfectly'' optimised.

This isn't because there's anything special about zeta peak indexes - any other method of slight [[equave]] stretching/compression would achieve exactly the same positive effects. Zeta peak indexes are probably not ''perfectly'' optimised.

But I don't care about perfect, I care about good enough. They are a ''good enough'' improvement upon their edo/edt counterpart that I'm happy with them.

And I like that they're very easy to name. It just looks so much cleaner to say "I used 127zpi for this track" rather than "I used 38.~~7cet~~" for this track. I like not having to just pick an arbitrary cents value.

And I like that they're very easy to name. It just looks so much cleaner to say "I used 127zpi for this track" rather than "I used 38.7[[APS|cet]]" for this track. I like not having to just pick an arbitrary [[cents]] value.

It's the same reason why I like using a big edo to tune a ~~regular~~ temperament: It's too hard having to choose between TOP and TE and POTE and WE and all of those. But if most of those agree that a particular edo is part of the temperament's optimal ET sequence, I'll just use that edo. I just like the simplicity of quantising to an edo, and I just can't be bothered fussing over hundredths of a cent.

It's the same reason why I like using a big edo to tune a [[rank-2 temperament]]: It's too hard having to choose between [[TOP]] and [[TE]] and [[POTE]] and [[WE]] and all of those. But if most of those agree that a particular edo is part of the temperament's [[optimal ET sequence]], I'll just use that edo. I just like the simplicity of quantising to an edo, and I just can't be bothered fussing over hundredths of a cent.

So are zeta peak indexes special? No. Any other method of octave/tritave-stretch/compression works just as well.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 </div>
-I ''don't'' believe that zeta peak indexes are the ''most'' mathematically perfect, optimal equal tunings possible. I don't think that there is anything especially about zeta peak indexes that sets them apart from any other stretched/compressed-octaves or stretched/compressed-tritaves tuning.
+I ''don't'' believe that [[zeta peak index]]es are [[Optimization|mathematically perfect]], optimal [[equal tuning]]s. I don't think that there is anything especially about zeta peak indexes that sets them apart from any other [[Stretched and compressed tuning|stretched/compressed-octaves or stretched/compressed-tritaves tuning]].
-But I still really like zeta peak indexes, because they are ''good enough'' for me. They usually approximate most of the the most important primes better than their pure-octaves/pure-tritaves equivalent edo/edt, with very few downsides.
+But I still really like zeta peak indexes, because they are ''good enough'' for me. They usually approximate most of the the most important [[prime]]s better than their pure-octaves/pure-tritaves equivalent [[edo]]/[[edt]], with very few downsides.
-This isn't because there's anything special about zeta peak indexes - any other method of slight equave stretching/compression would achieve exactly the same positive effects. Zeta peak indexes are probably not ''perfectly'' optimised.
+This isn't because there's anything special about zeta peak indexes - any other method of slight [[equave]] stretching/compression would achieve exactly the same positive effects. Zeta peak indexes are probably not ''perfectly'' optimised.
 But I don't care about perfect, I care about good enough. They are a ''good enough'' improvement upon their edo/edt counterpart that I'm happy with them.
-And I like that they're very easy to name. It just looks so much cleaner to say "I used 127zpi for this track" rather than "I used 38.7cet" for this track. I like not having to just pick an arbitrary cents value.
+And I like that they're very easy to name. It just looks so much cleaner to say "I used 127zpi for this track" rather than "I used 38.7[[APS|cet]]" for this track. I like not having to just pick an arbitrary [[cents]] value.
-It's the same reason why I like using a big edo to tune a regular temperament: It's too hard having to choose between TOP and TE and POTE and WE and all of those. But if most of those agree that a particular edo is part of the temperament's optimal ET sequence, I'll just use that edo. I just like the simplicity of quantising to an edo, and I just can't be bothered fussing over hundredths of a cent.
+It's the same reason why I like using a big edo to tune a [[rank-2 temperament]]: It's too hard having to choose between [[TOP]] and [[TE]] and [[POTE]] and [[WE]] and all of those. But if most of those agree that a particular edo is part of the temperament's [[optimal ET sequence]], I'll just use that edo. I just like the simplicity of quantising to an edo, and I just can't be bothered fussing over hundredths of a cent.
 So are zeta peak indexes special? No. Any other method of octave/tritave-stretch/compression works just as well.