|
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
| (50 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| * [[User talk:FloraC/Archive 2020]]
| | {{Archives}} |
| * [[User talk:FloraC/Archive 2021]]
| |
|
| |
|
| == Normalized mapping vs minimum generator == | | == Higher primes == |
| | A while back I made an edit on [[181edo]], saying it has less than 30% error on most prime harmonics up to 137. You removed this info, giving the edit summary "don't bombard the readers with random prime numbers. 30% unsigned error isn't even special." There is a similar section on the page for [[43edo]], which goes as follows: |
|
| |
|
| Why is the generator wider than a half octave in some temperaments? Why did you edit mappings to normalize?
| | <blockquote>Although not [[consistent]], 43edo performs quite well in very high prime limits. It has unambiguous mappings for all prime harmonics up to ''113'' (after which the demands on its pitch resolution finally become too great), with the sole exceptions of 23, 71, 89, and 103, making a great [[#Ringer 43|Ringer scale]].</blockquote> |
|
| |
|
| * [{{val|1 0 -4 -13}}, {{val|0 1 4 10}}] (generator: ~3 = 1896.5 cents) vs [{{val|1 2 4 7}}, {{val|0 -1 -4 -10}}] (generator: ~4/3 = 503.5 cents) in the [[Meantone family|meantone temperament]] (12&19)
| | Here, prime 41 with 37.5% relative error is considered "unambiguous". Four missing primes in the 113-limit isn't really too special with this rather relaxed bound. You may want to do something about this section, though maybe more can be kept as 43edo is smaller than 181.--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 22:52, 12 January 2026 (UTC) |
| * [{{val|1 0 -4 2}}, {{val|0 2 8 1}}] (generator: ~7/4 = 947.4 cents) vs [{{val|1 2 4 3}}, {{val|0 -2 -8 -1}}] (generator: ~7/6 = 252.6 cents) in the [[Meantone temperament #Godzilla|godzilla temperament]] (5&14c)
| |
| * [{{val|1 0 -13 -3}}, {{val|0 3 29 11}}] (generator: ~81/56 = 634.0 cents) vs [{{val|1 3 16 8}}, {{val|0 -3 -29 -11}}] (generator: ~112/81 = 566.0 cents) in the [[Tricot family|tricot temperament]] (53&70)
| |
| * [{{val|1 7 3 15}}, {{val|0 -8 -1 -18}}] (generator: ~8/5 = 812.6 cents) vs [{{val|1 -1 2 -3}}, {{val|0 8 1 18}}] (generator: ~5/4 = 387.4 cents) in the [[Würschmidt family|würschmidt temperament]] (31&96)
| |
| * [{{val|1 12 56 -2}}, {{val|0 -13 -67 6}}] (generator: ~256/147 = 961.4 cents) vs [{{val|1 -1 -11 4}}, {{val|0 13 67 -6}}] (generator: ~147/128 = 238.6 cents) in the [[Wizmic microtemperaments #Tokko|tokko temperament]] (5&166)
| |
| * [{{val|1 16 32 -15}}, {{val|0 -17 -35 21}}] (generator: ~9/5 = 1017.5 cents) vs [{{val|1 -1 -3 6}}, {{val|0 17 35 -21}}] (generator: ~10/9 = 182.5 cents) in the [[Minortonic family #Mitonic|mitonic temperament]] (46&125)
| |
| * [{{val|1 25 -31 -8}}, {{val|0 -26 37 12}}] (generator: ~28/15 = 1080.7 cents) vs [{{val|1 -1 6 4}}, {{val|0 26 -37 -12}}] (generator: ~15/14 = 119.3 cents) in the [[Breedsmic temperaments #Septidiasemi|septidiasemi temperament]] (10&161)
| |
| * [{{val|1 17 9 10}}, {{val|0 -30 -13 -14}}] (generator: ~10/7 = 616.6 cents) vs [{{val|1 -13 -4 -4}}, {{val|0 30 13 14}}] (generator: ~7/5 = 583.4 cents) in the [[Breedsmic temperaments #Cotritone|cotritone temperament]] (37&72)
| |
| * [{{val|2 0 11 31}}, {{val|0 1 -2 -8}}] (generator: ~3 = 1903.7 cents) vs [{{val|2 3 5 7}}, {{val|0 1 -2 -8}}] (generator: ~16/15 = 103.7 cents) in the [[Diaschismic family #Diaschismic|diaschismic temperament]] (46&58)
| |
| * [{{val|2 1 9 -2}}, {{val|0 2 -4 7}}] (generator: ~35/24 = 652.8 cents) vs [{{val|2 3 5 5}}, {{val|0 2 -4 7}}] (generator: ~36/35 = 52.8 cents) in the [[Diaschismic family #Shrutar|shrutar temperament]] (22&46)
| |
| * [{{val|3 0 7 18}}, {{val|0 1 0 -2}}] (generator: ~3 = 1909.3 cents) vs [{{val|3 5 7 8}}, {{val|0 -1 0 2}}] (generator: ~16/15 = 90.7 cents) in [[Augmented family #Augene|augene temperament]] (12&15)
| |
| * [{{val|9 1 1 12}}, {{val|0 2 3 2}}] (generator: ~5/3 = 884.3 cents) vs [{{val|9 15 22 26}}, {{val|0 -2 -3 -2}}] (generator: ~36/35 = 49.0 cents) in the [[Ragismic microtemperaments #Ennealimmal|ennealimmic temperament]] (27&45)
| |
|
| |
|
| There are an infinite of mappings of each temperaments including normalized form (left) and minimum generator form (right). In the normalized form, ''a<sub>2</sub>'' in the mapping [{{val|a<sub>1</sub> a<sub>2</sub> a<sub>3</sub> …}}, {{val|0 b<sub>2</sub> b<sub>3</sub> …}}] takes 0 ≤ ''a<sub>2</sub>'' < abs(''b<sub>2</sub>'') if ''b<sub>2</sub>'' ≠ 0. The minimum generator form ("Reduced Mapping" in the [http://x31eq.com/temper Temperament finding scripts] by [[Graham Breed]], taking 0 ≤ ''g'' ≤ ''p''/2 where ''p'' is the period and ''g'' is the generator) can be yielded by Euclidean algorithm. Which form are you favor? --[[User:Xenllium|Xenllium]] ([[User talk:Xenllium|talk]]) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
| | : Originally, this part read: |
|
| |
|
| : I'm aware of all the normal forms. I participated in the rework on the ''Normal lists'' page, after all (see also the corresponding talk page). The positive generator form is what I prefer, and with ''mapping generators'' showing the corresponding ratios. Reasons? First, Gene has always chosen that form. Second, it makes sense in higher ranks, whereas the minimum generator form doesn't. That said, I'm less sure about the ''POTE generator'' line. This line is more practical and sometimes really used to tune things. I hope octave-reduced form for this line isn't a bad choice. We're used to meantone being generated by fifths, not fourths. We may also add minimum generator form in parentheses when appropriate. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 14:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC) | | : <blockquote>Although not consistent, it performs quite decently in very high limits. It has unambiguous mappings for all prime harmonics up to 64 [61], with the sole exceptions of 23 and, perhaps, 41. </blockquote> |
|
| |
|
| == Reasonable commas extension ==
| | : Then some editor was being crazy about it cuz ''four'' exceptions are no ''sole'' exceptions. But I don't think I'm gonna remove that entirely. Rather, I'm moving it to a higher-limit JI subsection of the approximation to JI section to hopefully declutter the theory section. |
|
| |
|
| Hi there,
| | : —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| I recently stumbled upon your "reasonable commas" page, and I wanted to know a few things:
| | == 2187/1250 == |
| - What are/were your motivations for this page?
| | I’m planning to draft a page for 2187/1250 in my userspace since it’s a 5-limit ratio closely approximating 7/4, but I think I should name it something. Something like 5-limit harmonic-esque seventh or something referencing the ragismic temperament since it’s 4375/4374 below 7/4. Do you have any name suggestions? <span style="display: inline-block;transform: rotate(15deg);background:#E1EBF2;font-family:Verdana;text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px #0008;">[[User:Hotcrystal0|hotcrysta]][[User talk: Hotcrystal0|l0]]</span> 19:12, 14 January 2026 (UTC) |
| - What is the difference between the two definitions on that page?
| |
| - What is the algorithm you used? (as to extend to higher limits)
| |
|
| |
|
| Thank you --[[User:Royalmilktea|Royalmilktea]] ([[User talk:Royalmilktea|talk]]) 07:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
| | : Tetraptolemaic diminished seventh. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 20:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :> What are/were your motivations for this page? | | == Generator counts == |
| : It seems like a good criterion for whether a comma is an efficient one. | | I'm planning to start another chord page draft at [[User:Overthink/Chords of pajara]] (not yet created as of the time this is written). The issue is that it's not as simple to give a chord by generator counts, as there's a half-octave period in pajara. The page [[Unidec/Chords]] uses a val, but it is quite messy. I propose the following solution: The half-octave is taken as the period, and the generator is a perfect fifth. Intervals reachable by stacking fifths are just written with a number; for example, 1–3/2–12/7 would be "0–1–3". An interval that requires stacking fifths from the half-octave would be written with "T" (for tritone) before the number of fifths stacked; for example, 1–6/5–3/2 would be written as "0–T3–1". Maybe it would be better to give an "R" (for root) before intervals reachable by stacking fifths, so that 1–6/5–3/2 would be "R0–T3–R1", which is more readable. I'm also not too sure if the fifth should be the generator or the semitone instead.--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 01:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :> What is the difference between the two definitions on that page? | | : I have to say I'm influenced by hkm's usage of an apostrophe to denote an offset by a period, so in that scheme, 1–6/5–3/2 can be written as "0–'3–1". I feel it looks fairly clean, not too intrusive, at least for temps with a semi-octave period. I think the generator should be taken as the fifth, not the semitone, cuz it's easier to think of the temp as two chains of fifths offset by a semi-octave. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:29, 20 January 2026 (UTC) |
| : My redefinition is more strict. For example, 135/128 would be a reasonable comma in the original definition cuz none of 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 is 5-limit. In my redefinition 135/128 isn't one since 135/128 = (25/24)(81/80), factored into two simpler commas.
| |
|
| |
|
| :> What is the algorithm you used? (as to extend to higher limits) | | :: Hm... Maybe placing the apostrophe ''after'' the number is more readable. This way 1–6/5–3/2 will become "0–3'–1", and the number coming first is more readable, plus it will be read as "3 prime" which fits better with math notation.--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 21:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC) |
| : Dead Shaman somehow generated the lists of commas according to his original definition. I simply checked each comma manually. So unfortunately I don't have an algorithm to share. | |
|
| |
|
| : [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | | ::: Good point. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Optimal GPV sequence template/module == | | == {{monzo| -37 0 0 0 0 10}} == |
| | Does there exist a page for the {{monzo| -37 0 0 0 0 10 }} comma, or the difference between 10 13/8s and 7 octaves? <span style="display: inline-block;transform: rotate(15deg);background:#E1EBF2;font-family:Verdana;text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px #0008;">[[User:Hotcrystal0|hotcrysta]][[User talk: Hotcrystal0|l0]]</span> 16:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Is there a way to actually implement your temperament evaluator python files to find a temperament's optimal GPV sequence into a template on this site for better ease of use? Or for all of your temperament evaluator files? --[[User:Royalmilktea|Royalmilktea]] ([[User talk:Royalmilktea|talk]]) 04:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
| | : As you can see in ''Small comma'' page, the comma was named the ''valerisma'', and no articles exist for it. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 16:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| : I have no idea how to implement it in lua. That said, I might make a separate python script for this particular functionality. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
| | == Odd prime sum limit notability == |
| | I noticed that you removed the mentions of odd prime sum limit records I made from a couple of edo pages. Is it too arbitrary of a metric for prime approximation to be mentioned on these pages? If so, how is it different in this regard from Pepper ambiguity (still mentioned on the 270edo page)? |
|
| |
|
| == Equivalence continua: fractional n's ==
| | : I do take issue with Pepper ambiguity specifically when the intervals involve inconsistency, but as the information have been there for a long time I don't feel like removing them. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC) |
| | : <small>P.S. pls remember to sign your comment with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. </small> |
|
| |
|
| How exactly do you get a rational number from using a fractional exponent? This is mostly for the diaschismic-porcupine continuum page I'm making.
| | == EDO impressions == |
| | In your EDO impressions for 36edo you mentioned adding “third tones”, even though the correct term here would be “sixth tones”. Can you fix that? <span style="display: inline-block;transform: rotate(15deg);background:#E1EBF2;font-family:Verdana;text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px #0008;">[[User:Hotcrystal0|hotcrysta]][[User talk: Hotcrystal0|l0]]</span> 18:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:Royalmilktea|Royalmilktea]] ([[User talk:Royalmilktea|talk]]) 02:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
| | : Fixed. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 20:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| : You can get the fractional monzos by adding or subtracting fractional multiples of the ''n'' = infinity monzo from the ''n'' = 0 3-limit base monzo, and then eliminate fractions by lcm-ing it. Btw I have some important comments and plz make sure you read the talk page of that particular page you mentioned. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
| | == Tetracot == |
|
| |
|
| == Constrained tuning vs. POTE tuning ==
| | On the page [[Tetracot extensions]], you suggested splitting it into four pages: [[Monkey]], [[Bunya]], [[Modus]], and [[Wollemia]]. Tetracot splits the [[2187/2048|apotome]] into four comma steps. It maps 5/4 to the vM3, 11/8 to the sA4, and 13/8 to the n6. The main tetracot edos are [[27edo]] (27e val for prime 11), [[34edo]], and [[41edo]]. These extensions differ is the mapping of prime 7: |
|
| |
|
| I wondered that optimal tunings of some temperaments are indicated by [[Constrained tuning|constrained TE]] (CTE) instead of [[POTE tuning|octave-destretched TE]] (POTE). Why did you update to replace generators POTE to CTE?
| | Monkey (34 & 41): 7/4 is vm7 |
|
| |
|
| Temperament generators indicated by CTE tuning:
| | Bunya (34d & 41): 7/4 is sA6 |
|
| |
|
| * [[Meantone family]]
| | Modus (27e & 34d): 7/4 is m7 |
| * [[Porcupine family]]
| |
| * [[Augmented family]]
| |
| * [[Hemifamity temperaments]]
| |
|
| |
|
| and so on ... --[[User:Xenllium|Xenllium]] ([[User talk:Xenllium|talk]]) 08:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
| | Wollemia (27e & 34): 7/4 is ^A6 |
|
| |
|
| : The community (at least the part from Discord) have generally agreed that CTE is a more logical tuning. It's planned that most of the RTT pages will be eventually updated to CTE. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
| | I've noticed that in 27edo the pythagorean thirds are quite clearly supermajor/subminor, and the 5-limit thirds are quite far from each other, with [[5/4]] being the same 400{{c}} major third as in 12edo, and [[6/5]] being slightly flat at 311.{{Overline|1}}{{c}}. 34edo makes 5/4 and 6/5 both about equally sharp, and the pythagorean thirds are mapped as in 17edo. 41edo maps the pythagorean thirds close to just, but the 5-limit thirds are slightly closer to neutral as a result. In any case, intervals of 11 and 13 are mapped to neutral intervals. The way I tend to think of tetracot is as a tertian structure (like [[keemic]]). |
|
| |
|
| == Temperament name revision for 99&166 and 166&198 ==
| | Monkey and modus map 7/4 to a 7th (they are supported by the 7edo patent val). The tertian structures of 27edo and 41edo are quite clearly different, while 34edo is somewhat similar to both (though IMO closer to 27edo as 34d is better than patent 34). Here 34d&27 is modus, while 34&41 is monkey. They are quite clearly different, as modus sets the pythagorean thirds to septimal ones while pental thirds are halfway between the septimal thirds and neutral ones. Monkey, on the other hand, distinguishes the pythagorean thirds from pental and septimal ones, and sets them equidistant from pental and septimal thirds. |
|
| |
|
| Reviewing [http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/m/magic.aspx magic] in ''Encyclopedia of Microtonal Music Theory'', Tonalsoft, a low-accuacy temperament which tempers out 36/35 and 1875/1792 is given a name ''witch'', so I revised the temperament names for 99&166 (''witch'' → ''[[Wizmic microtemperaments #Witcher|witcher]]'') and 166&198 (''semiwitch''→''[[Wizmic microtemperaments #Witcher|semiwitcher]]''). Deal? --[[User:Xenllium|Xenllium]] ([[User talk:Xenllium|talk]]) 07:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
| | Bunya and wollemia, on the other hand, map 7/4 to a 6th (corresponding to the 7d val). Bunya (34d&41) maps 7/4 to a sA6, so that 28/27 is equated with 33/32 as an sA1, as in [[parapyth]]. This sets the pythagorean major third to [[14/11]], and 9/7 to an sd4 instead. Bunya also tempers out [[225/224]], so that 7/4 is equated with the [[225/128]] augmented 6th, which in tetracot is a vvA6 = sA6. Wollemia (27e & 34), on the other hand, is quite strange. It tunes the fifth so that the pythagorean intervals are close to septimal intervals, but doesn't actually map them to septimal intervals. Instead, 28/27 is mapped to a ^1, so 9/7 is a v4, and 7/6 is a ^A2. Optimal tunings of wollemia are close to optimal tunings of modus, but doesn't temper out [[64/63]], instead equating septimal supermajor/subminor intervals to tridecimal ultramajor/inframinor intervals via tempering of [[91/90]]. In wollemia [[14/11]] is also mapped to the same interval as [[5/4]], and [[11/8]] the same interval as [[7/5]]. I'm not too sure of the significance of this yet, besides that both the 27e and 34 vals contain these equivalences. |
|
| |
|
| : Sure, since you named them in the first place. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
| | In any case, I suggest you add a 7et detemperament section to the [[Tetracot]] article. |
|
| |
|
| == Meantone tuning spectrum additions? ==
| | --[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 23:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| My thoughts behind the additions I made to the tuning spectrum table (both removed and remaining):
| | : Sure. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| # Add clarification about syntonic comma vs other commas -- quite a number of commas appear in the table, but syntonic comma has its adjective stripped (as is traditional, so I didn't think it right to change that), which could be confusing to new people, especially if they have also seen another tuning spectrum table that has a different primary comma.
| | == About schismina == |
| # Fractions of Pythagorean comma appear often in this table, but the endpoints 7EDO and 5EDO have different 3-limit commas, so I thought it would be good to put those in there in the relevant lines.
| | What's the deal with the schisminic temp? It is 2.3.5.7.13, there's no 11. Also, I would deem the differences I outlined are notable, because they show how many ''simple'' ratios of 35 have tiny differences with tridecimal equivalents and viceversa. Specially 8505/8192, whose pressence in Sagittal pretty much assumes that the schismina is either tempered out or fudged. It's that important of a schisma, we have to sell it as such! --[[User:Eufalesio|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio|talk]]) 17:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC) |
| # 3/4-comma (especially) and 2/3 comma Meantone are very close to 7EDO.
| |
| # Some of the EDOs in the table are there only by way of non-patent vals, but this was not explicit before.
| |
| # 12EDO is almost exactly 1 Schisma Meantone; also, somebody (probably copy/paste error) had 12EDO notated as as "virtually 1/12 Pythagorean comma" and not "virtually 1/11 (syntonic) comma".
| |
| # Since 5EDO is in the table (come to think of it, ''should it be there''?), I thought the addition of some of the more prominent negative Meantone (not sure what it should be called) tunings would be in order, especially Ptolemismic which is very close to 5EDO.
| |
|
| |
|
| For (especially) the first last, I now understand from your edit comment that non-Septimal-Meantone 7-limit and all 11-limit entries should go somewhere else. I did see the tuning table for Flattone, so maybe the entries close to 7EDO should go there? And maybe the Flattone EDOs currently in this table should also be moved there? But then flatter-than-flattone (Flattertone) doesn't have its own tuning spectrum table, and given that it is a sub-entry of the Meantone family article, I thought a new table would look kind of funny there. Similarly, Dominant doesn't have its own tuning spectrum table, and given that it is a sub-entry of the Meantone family article, I thought a new table would look kind of funny there. Not sure yet whether all negative Meantones like 17c should all go in a hypothetical Dominant tuning spectrum table, although 17c itself is Dominant. I DID see (although I must confess temporarily forgot about) the multiple tuning tables in Meantone vs Meanpop, so maybe the Ptolemismic tuning (11-limit) should go there? Although I'm not sure which of the tables it would fit into. Of these tables, only Tridecimal Meantone and Meanpop (but not Tridecimal Meanpop) have a negative meantone entry at all, and those are all only very slightly sharpened. Although at least if a new tuning spectrum table was needed in there, it wouldn't seem out of place. On the other hand, maybe such a hypothetical table should be somewhere else entirely, since undecimal negative Meantone (probably -- haven't done the math yet) would be neither Undecimal Meantone nor Meanpop?
| | : > What's the deal with the schisminic temp? It is 2.3.5.7.13, there's no 11. |
|
| |
|
| Anyway, when I made my edits, I didn't realize that I was stepping on an organizational convention in making the edits I thought of above, so until I learn it better, I will revert back to proposing such potentially organization-altering changes in the Talk pages associated with the pages I am considering, and sorry for the trouble.
| | : That's why ''schismina'' isn't a great name for the comma; there's no room to distinguish the minimal-prime-subgroup temp and the full-prime-limit temp according to our rules. I've proposed something else in ''Talk: 4096/4095''. |
|
| |
|
| [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 18:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
| | : > I would deem the differences I outlined are notable. |
|
| |
|
| : Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate your professionality regarding editing the wiki. | | : I think there's a problem in how you present your ideas. If all you wanna discuss is the merge of intervals of 13 with intervals of 35, add that instead. A pair of ratios may serve as an example, but the entire point is in the context. The ratios alone which comprise three- or even four-digit ones aren't notable cuz no one uses them in music. |
| :# Since you clarified this in the first entry, I think it's good now. The syntonic comma is also special cuz the article is about ''meantone''. In other temps you shouldn't see fractions of the syntonic comma.
| |
| :# The fractional Pythagorean-comma tunings are senseless enough – I've never seen anyone looking for them, nor are they technically compatible with RTT. If I were bolder I'd remove all the Pythagorean-comma and septimal-comma tunings alike, but I'd better consult the community first. The actual problem is, there's no point adding those information of fractional limmas or fractional apotomes cuz there's no other fractions. Also every edo has such an association: for 19edo it's a 1/19-(19-comma) tuning; for 31edo it's a 1/31-(31-comma) tuning.
| |
| :# I don't think closeness to an edo warrants an entry. Why would someone look for those instead of grabbing the exact edo tuning?
| |
| :# I appreciate the specification of vals you added. Thank you.
| |
| :# Thank you for correcting it.
| |
| :# You have a point here. I think 5edo should have a place there cuz it's a relatively low-numbered edo that defines the edge of a tuning range (5-odd-limit diamond monotone), making it significant. Some higher edos tho really just clutters the space, esp. those in the flattone or dominant range. Pls note that extensions like flattertone and dominant will eventually get their own pages and own tuning spectra. I can make this quickly happen, if someone asks. But I don't think a simple split of the spectrum is the best solution. For one thing, all the extensions are meantone extensions and all the 5-limit eigeninterval tunings still apply. I think it's a question of which range to put the focus on. For meantone it's prolly best to maintain a higher precision in the meantone range, for flattone higher precision in the flattone range, etc.
| |
| : [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :: Sorry, just now saw this. (Xenharmonic Wiki ''used to'' notify me when somebody added something to a page that have "Watch" checked on, and now it mysteriously quit doing that -- this happening to you too?). | | : —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 17:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC) |
| ::# Seems to me that if a foreign comma produces a useful eigenmonzo or subset temperament (including part of a well-temperament), it might be worth mentioning.
| |
| ::# Part of the same thought as above.
| |
| ::# Part of the same thought as above -- why would someone look for a comma fraction that gets close to an EDO? Well, for starters, if they are making a well-tempered derivative of an EDO, they might want the exact comma fraction (even if a foreign comma) to get the exact eigenmonzo in the desired part of the well-tempered derivative, like quarter-comma or sixth-comma segments of some historical well-temperaments (and historical example of foreign comma: whole schisma in segment of Kirnberger temperament, and if I recall correctly also in somewhat later well-tempered relatives of 12EDO). So by analogy, whole-comma and 3/4-comma (and maybe even 2/3-comma) meantone might be useful for somebody making a well-tempered derivative of 7EDO (and 7WT does exist in world music, in the Republic of Georgia at least, although from what I read they make their well-tempered version differently from this example). Also, if a fractional-comma (even if foreign comma) meantone is very close to an EDO, a rendition of it with the same number of notes per octave can serve as a well-tempered version of an EDO in its own right: historically, 31 notes per octave quarter comma meantone as likely used on the Clavemusicum Omnitonum is close enough to 31EDO that the wolf fifth is tamed down to a dog fifth. Likewise with 12 notes per octave sixth-comma meantone (a more yappy dog, but at least you can play the whole gamut on a common non-extended Halberstadt keyboard). Also related to this: I keep thinking that the line for Pythagorean tuning should also show the alternate name 0-comma meantone, since shoehorning Pythagorean tuning into the 5-limit and higher is of actual musical interest (such as shown on the pages for Pythagorean augmented second and diminished fourth).
| |
| ::# I think somebody else (or you?) adjusted the "d" warts on those, about which I wasn't sure of since I hadn't figured out that the table was supposed to be focused on septimal meantone rather than a grand unified meantone tuning table.
| |
| ::# (Foreign comma schisma was eliminated -- but see above about Kirnberger temparment.)
| |
| ::# No rush. I know how it is, already being up later than I should be doing this.
| |
| :: But now I'm thinking it might be good to have a grand unified table of fifths and flattened/sharpened-fifth-based temperaments and their member EDOs. An obvious starting point would be to copy and paste the meantone tuning spectrum, but the table would need to have columns added to designate temperament (since some of these would be non-meantone -- for starters, especially Superpyth and Mavila) and extensions; also equivalent extension names for other meantone-like temperaments. Would require some thought of how to have enough information while keeping it readable for those having non-humongous screens, though (especially when something appears on more than one temperament and/or extension).
| |
| :: [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 14:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::: Closeness to an edostep is a property of a JI interval, so these things go to the interval's page. For example the page 50/33 has a section describing its proximity to 3\5. That should be enough for users looking for information on well temp design. It doesn't have to be in the meantone tuning spectrum.
| | == Thanks == |
| | | Hello Flora, how are you today? I see you corrected some mistakes I unwittingly made when editing MOS pages, for example, when I called 2L 17s a MOS of Pycnic temperament and you took it out, noting that 2L 17s is actually tritonic temperament. So, I just wanted to say thank you, and I will double-check my edits in the future. [[User:MisterShafXen|MisterShafXen]] ([[User talk:MisterShafXen|talk]]) 17:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC) |
| ::: Another problem is right in the "useful eigenmonzo". Eigenmonzo is an RTT concept, and some tunings aren't technically compatible with it. All the fractional Pythagorean-comma tunings aren't, so you gotta specify "as M2", "as m3" etc. which are pretty awkward. Same with the "full-schisma" tuning (the Kirnberger fifth is a d6; you're forcing it to be the P5). The actual tuning that tunes the Kirnberger fifth pure is the 1/11-comma tuning, which is even closer to 7\12. It's also extremely close to the 1/12-comma tuning which tunes the schisma itself pure. That aside, I don't think the Kirnberger fifth is ever actively looked for. It's more of an artifact of well temp design.
| |
| | |
| ::: Speaking of well temp design, I think it has become an art in itself. God knows how many well temps have been invented in the world and so there's no point tryna document all the fifths ever used in them. If you just want a giant table of fifths there's a page for that: ''List of interesting fifths''. It's a bit unmaintained. Maybe you can help cleaning it up.
| |
| | |
| ::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 16:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::: I've put an entry in the Talk for that. [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 05:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::: I couldn't resist looking up some syntonic comma equivalents of the Georgian 7WT, reportedly most commonly alternating 4ED3/2 (step size 175.489¢) and 3ED4/3 (step size 166.015¢). You can get REAL CLOSE to these with alternating 2/3-comma meantone (9/8 flattened by 4/3 syntonic comma = 175.235¢) and 7/8-comma meantone (9/8 flattened by 7/4 syntonic comma = 166.274¢). So did the Georgia 7WT really arise as alternating 4ED3/2 and 3ED4/3, or did it come from alternating 2/3-comma meantone and 7/8-comma meantone and then inflating one or both very slightly to make the octave just (from 1190.8¢ to 1200.0¢)? [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 06:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
| |