|
|
| (16 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| = ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =
| | {{WSArchiveLink}} |
| '''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''
| |
| ----
| |
|
| |
|
| == Criteria for rows to appear in these tables == | | == Splitting the table in four == |
| My personal vision for these tables is that it's completely open-ended what octave fractions you want to put in - if you strongly attached to 105\181 as the perfect meantone generator then go right ahead and put it in - but the one thing I'd ask people NOT to do is add lots and lots of octave fractions automatically or pseudo-automatically. There should be a reason for each and every row that appears in the table (even if the reason is merely "I like it").
| | What's the basis of this split? I'm afraid it introduces bias. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Does anyone have a serious problem with this policy? If not, I'll remove many of the rows that seem to have been added only to "flesh out" the table and not because someone actually cares about that particular row.
| | :: The split was because it was difficult both read and edit the huge uninterrupted wall of table. The reason multiples of 150c were chosen is because they are the only spots which have nice round numbers which aren't in the middle of any of the temperaments already listed (eg not breaking porcupine or tetracot or any other temperament in half). Multiples of 200c would work too, but I went with 150c because that means each section is shorter thus more readable. But the choices were 150s or 200s. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 10:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC). |
|
| |
|
| Also, the repeating decimals thing seems useless because the exact rational numbers are already there. There's no reason to write "171.(428571) repeating" because that information is already there in "1\7". The decimal should simply be 171.43, or perhaps 171.429 for overkill precision. It took me a while even to figure out what the underlines meant. Let's just use standard rounded decimals, okay?
| | :: I don't think the subheadings are likely to introduce any bias - it's not like I said "150-300c is the best range, all the others smell!", I don't think there's anything that would lead a reader to preference one over another. And the dividing lines don't cut any temperaments in half so no bias is introduced in that way either (if it did cut any in half, then those ones would look "less important", but it didn't so we're good). |
|
| |
|
| I'm open to counter-arguments on any of these points. | | :: So I see no cause for concern of introducing bias there. |
|
| |
|
| - '''keenanpepper''' September 13, 2012, 02:16:00 PM UTC-0700
| | :: What I ''am'' concerned about in terms of bias is some temperaments being given many fewer example tunings (fewer rows) than other equally important temperaments. Of course some temperaments are much more notable than others, so it's normal for them to have more rows. Anything from 'Middle Path' should have lots of rows for example. But what I'm talking about is two similarly notable temperaments where one has way more rows than others. That introduces bias by making it look more impressive. I'm gradually working on fixing that. In a recent edit I reduced the number of rows for porcupine to be more in line with similar notability temperaments like tetracot or Superpyth. |
| ----
| |
| I second all of the above motions. | |
|
| |
|
| - '''d.schallert''' September 13, 2012, 03:34:09 PM UTC-0700
| | :: What I'm also concerned about is which tunings get listed at all in the first place, as that's also a source of bias. The page description, which was here long before I was, says ''every'' linear temperament should appear on this page. That's not possible of course but I like it as an ideal to strive towards. We should just add (within reason) as much as we can. Eventually I'd like to add every temperament from the 3 Middle Path table pages and every temperament from [[Survey of efficient temperaments by subgroup]] to this table. I think excluding any of those is a form of bias, and once they're all added the bias will be less, as only niche tunings will be missing. |
| ----
| |
| Go for it.
| |
|
| |
|
| - '''Sarzadoce''' September 13, 2012, 03:53:23 PM UTC-0700 | | :: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 11:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC) |
| ----
| |
|
| |
|
| == Lovecraft and Huxley ==
| | ::: Yes, we need to review the details at some point. |
| These now have generators listed on a temperaments list, but with no indication of what they might be tempering. One plausible starting point is with the 2.11.13 subgroup and the comma 1352/1331; in terms of that core concept they would both be generators for the same temperament.
| |
|
| |
|
| - '''genewardsmith''' December 02, 2011, 04:56:40 PM UTC-0800
| | ::: For now I just added a note on the split. |
| ----
| |
| Here are two possibilities I can think of:
| |
|
| |
|
| http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=17_4p&limit=2.3.7.11.13 (tempers out 1352/1331 as you suggest)
| | ::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=17_21ef&limit=2.3.7.11.13
| | :::: Thank you, the explanation you added to the page is good :) |
|
| |
|
| - '''keenanpepper''' December 02, 2011, 05:26:45 PM UTC-0800 | | :::: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 22:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC) |
| ----
| |
|
| |
|
| == I object! ==
| | :::: I've prepared this to help, for whenever you wish to review the details. In the mean time I'll also keep chipping away at the page, mostly addressing the issues I found in here: |
| I object strongly to characterizing the 8\35 generator as "orwell". To be sure, the 35bd val supports orwell, but not in a way which gives a correct impression of what orwell is, sounds like, and can do. Insteaf of putting such an extremely misleading characterization on the page, why not call it by some name it honestly is, if you can find one, rather than by one it clearly isn't? 8\35 could be used for the 22&35 temperament, for instance. The tuning is not good, but it's better than trying to use it for orwell.
| |
|
| |
|
| - '''genewardsmith''' December 02, 2011, 01:09:50 AM UTC-0800
| | :::: '''[[User:BudjarnLambeth/Map of linear temperaments page health survey]]''' |
| ----
| |
|
| |
|
| == Semaphore vs. Semiphore? ==
| | :::: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 04:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC) |
| I edited this wiki to change semiphore to semaphore because that is the name I've heard everyone refer to it by. It is also listed as "semaphore" on the temperament finder.
| |
|
| |
|
| http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=19p_5p&limit=5
| | == ''Frost'' == |
| | Should be treated as taken by 2.5.7.11-subgroup {245/242}, the minimal prime subgroup temp of the frostma. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Is there something I am missing.
| | : I don't really understand what this means, sorry. I took my quetiapine a couple minutes ago so my brain is very foggy. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 10:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| - '''Sarzadoce''' September 04, 2011, 05:12:57 PM UTC-0700
| | : I get it now. Gordon named frost, not me, but I did encourage him to come up with ''a'' name, and I was very encouraging of "frost" as a name when he came up with it (see the 343edo thread in the forum channel of the XA Discord). Before I did, I did search the wiki for "frost" and there were no results that seemed to indicate it was taken so I gave the go ahead. Maybe it can be renamed to "frosted", "frosty", etc. Talk to Gordon and whatever he says, do that. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 10:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC) |
| ----
| |
| Talk to Gene about it. It was entirely his decision: | |
|
| |
|
| http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/message/view/Semiphore+and+Godzilla/41457421
| | :: Right. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC) |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' September 04, 2011, 05:44:00 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Note that the one you linked to should be called "godzilla" because it tempers out 81/80.
| |
| | |
| Semiphore is a 2.3.7 subgroup temperament that doesn't have the prime 5 at all.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' September 04, 2011, 05:45:48 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Then extend it to the 7 limit!
| |
| | |
| http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=19p_5p&limit=7
| |
| | |
| - '''Sarzadoce''' September 04, 2011, 06:37:21 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Um, not sure what you meant to say by posting that second link. That one should also be called "godzilla" according to Gene, again because it tempers out 81/80.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' September 04, 2011, 08:45:42 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| There's been a lot of discussion of this question, and Graham was in on that, but I'm not sure how his system works. But people want names for full group rank-two temperaments, subgroup rank-two temperaments, and rank three temperaments, and not a mixed up mess with changes going back and forth.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' September 04, 2011, 09:06:24 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Keenan: Imagine that temperament page but without the 5. :P
| |
| | |
| - '''Sarzadoce''' September 04, 2011, 09:09:47 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| This better?
| |
| | |
| http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=19p_5p&limit=2.3.7
| |
| | |
| - '''Sarzadoce''' September 04, 2011, 09:11:02 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| "Semiphore" was what I picked because I couldn't get Keenan to give me an alternative.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' September 04, 2011, 09:13:20 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Quick note that we've agreed to swap semiphore and semaphore:
| |
| | |
| http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/104570
| |
| | |
| - '''mbattaglia1''' May 19, 2012, 01:23:15 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Page is orphaned ==
| |
| any ideas where it should be linked-to from?
| |
| | |
| - '''xenwolf''' August 25, 2011, 01:48:37 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| This was already fixed.
| |
| | |
| - '''xenwolf''' January 23, 2013, 05:21:20 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == How to edit? ==
| |
| It would be nice to be able to edit this table without messing it up, but I don't know the best way to go about doing that.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' May 15, 2011, 08:20:03 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| There seems to be no way to ease editing this table. Templates could help, but on wikispaces, you have to pay to get this feature enabled. (But I don't know these template features, because I'm not active on a payed wiki here).
| |
| | |
| (Maybe a graphic would be easier to manage?)
| |
| | |
| - '''xenwolf''' May 16, 2011, 01:54:43 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Here are examples of changes I would want to make:
| |
| | |
| Rather than trying to use 34 as a one-size-fits-all solution to hanson, keemun and catakleismic, I would recognize keemun and catakleismic are not the same. Keemun could be 5\19, though the suggestion of 9\34 is certainly a possibility. Catakleismic should probably be 19\72, though you could use 14\53. Hanson could be 14\53. Anyway, my suggestion would be 14\53 for hanson, 5\19 for keemun and 19\72 for catakleismic.
| |
| | |
| I would also want to add more temperaments, such as rodan, hemififths, octacot etc, split up garibaldi like kleismic, and who knows what else.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' May 16, 2011, 08:47:39 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Wow, what a great resource this diagram is and can be!
| |
| | |
| To me, the page seems pretty easy to edit with the wysiwyg editor. If you want to add a row, click on a row above or below where you want your row to be, then click on the little table icon that appears beneath your cursor to the right, then click Row => Add Row => Add Above or Add Below. Adding columns works the same way.
| |
| | |
| I'd like to see this diagram show not only what the BEST generator is for each temperament, but also which temperaments each generator can handle. So, if 9\34 can function as all three of the temperaments Gene lists (and I don't know enough about the subject to agree or disagree with this), then I'd like to see all three names in the comments section for 9\34. Perhaps a particular temperament is done BEST (by some standard) with one particular generator. I'm interested in knowing which generator is BEST (and what the standard is), as well as which generators, even if not best, can handle that temperament. So I wonder if there's a way we can show both things with this table.
| |
| | |
| Cells can be merged, but I think that would make a mess. A better solution might be to copy the temperament name over and over, although it might look silly.
| |
| | |
| I think this is lovely, I am very interested in this topic, and I don't consider myself qualified to edit this table. However, I took the liberty of adding Gene's 14\53 Hanson, 5\19 Keemun and 19\72 Catakleismic, taking his word for it. Y'all please let me know if I did it wrong!
| |
| | |
| - '''Andrew_Heathwaite''' May 17, 2011, 12:18:10 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Also, am I wrong, or should "Porcupine" go with 3\22 and not 5\37?
| |
| | |
| - '''Andrew_Heathwaite''' May 17, 2011, 02:35:32 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Yeah, it is much easier to use the WYSIWYG editor, if only for the "add row" and "add column" tools. If you only had the wikitext editor you would want to use a script or something.
| |
| | |
| I'll make the changes you describe, Gene.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' August 25, 2011, 01:18:07 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Andrew, I'm sure you realize there's no single way to define "best". But if you want to put entries in the table for "TOP" or "p-limit minimax" or whatever other definitions of "best" you have in mind, that would be great.
| |
| | |
| Just don't make the mistake of thinking one person's "best" is everybody's "best".
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' August 25, 2011, 01:21:16 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| Gene, please do try to edit this if you want to. I will repair the table formatting with no complaints if you break it, but I think you can figure it out. I'm interested how you would make certain fine distinctions.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' August 25, 2011, 02:33:19 AM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |