User:BudjarnLambeth/My opinion on zeta peak indexes: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
I ''don't'' believe that zeta peak | 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 | 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. | 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. | 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 | 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. | So are zeta peak indexes special? No. Any other method of octave/tritave-stretch/compression works just as well. | ||
Latest revision as of 03:40, 16 August 2025
- (!!!)
- This is not a proper wiki page. It is NOT FACTUAL unlike the rest of the wiki, it is ONLY OPINION.
- The rest of the wiki is supposed to be 100% fact, 0% opinion.
- This page is the opposite. This page is 0% fact, 100% opinion.
- This page is only ever intended as a casual opinion column which never tries to be nor claims to be an encylopedic wiki article.
- This page is never intended to be moved to main space. Do not move it to main space. Keep it in user space.
- (!!!)
I don't believe that zeta peak indexes are mathematically perfect, optimal equal tunings. 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.
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.
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.
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.
But are they 'good enough'? Yes.
And do I still like them and want to use them? Yes.