|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user 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.'''
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Porcupinefish ==
| |
| Removed an error--the listed mapping did not temper out 91/90 and had a much higher badness figure anyway; replaced it with a version derived from the listed commas.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' October 22, 2011, 01:53:50 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Should we can this? ==
| |
| I made this a long time ago to try and do to 91/90 what the Biosphere did to 676/675. My initial approach was to treat the 91/90-tempered 2.3.7.13/5 rank-3 lattice in the same way that we treat the untempered rank-3 2.3.5 lattice, in that the base chords would be 6:7:9 and 10:13:15, both of which are very manageable complexity. I was hoping we'd then see a lot of subtemperaments derived from this, just like there's plenty deriving from 2.3.5, but until I code up the tuning library I've been talking about on the tuning list I don't have a way to search subgroups like that.
| |
| | |
| I still think that 91/90 is an award-winning comma, because it turns 6:7:9 into the utonal inverse of 10:13:15, but this page never took off. Most of these temperaments are just 2.3.7.13/5 subgroup versions of things we know. Should we just can it?
| |
| | |
| - '''mbattaglia1''' September 18, 2011, 06:38:26 PM UTC-0700
| |
| ----
| |
