Talk:Marvel: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 220:

::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: There is a reason that counting the times is way better than building in interpolation in the way you suggest. It's because of the tuning fidelity issue. If I build in a weighting curve, then I am algorithmically giving permission for the most complex harmonies to be the most off, which I've argued is objectively the wrong choice if you want to target those harmonies. By contrast, by not having a falloff I am ensuring that if those harmonies are too off, the rest of the tuning better be worth the sacrifice in the tuning fidelity where it's most needed. This allows systems that are biased to simpler harmonies appear. I've expressed that already I'm not sure if weighting proportional to the square root of the odd-limit is too forgiving for complex harmonies, but some strange edos can start appearing if you bias too strongly for large odd-limits. For example, using proportional to the odd-limit implies [[67edo]] is a lower-absolute-error system for the [[17-~~oddd~~-limit]] than [[58edo]], which I suspect is happening because of the sharp 11 and 13 of 58edo being punished more strongly as a result, which I don't find convincing. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 15:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: There is a reason that counting the times is way better than building in interpolation in the way you suggest. It's because of the tuning fidelity issue. If I build in a weighting curve, then I am algorithmically giving permission for the most complex harmonies to be the most off, which I've argued is objectively the wrong choice if you want to target those harmonies. By contrast, by not having a falloff I am ensuring that if those harmonies are too off, the rest of the tuning better be worth the sacrifice in the tuning fidelity where it's most needed. This allows systems that are biased to simpler harmonies appear. I've expressed that already I'm not sure if weighting proportional to the square root of the odd-limit is too forgiving for complex harmonies, but some strange edos can start appearing if you bias too strongly for large odd-limits. For example, using proportional to the odd-limit implies [[67edo]] is a lower-absolute-error system for the [[17-odd-limit]] than [[58edo]], which I suspect is happening because of the sharp 11 and 13 of 58edo being punished more strongly as a result, which I don't find convincing. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 15:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::::: You've already given permission for whatever intervals beyond the limit you specify to be the most off. You've already allowed, by specifying the 25-odd-limit, intervals of 27 to be the most off, which is "objectively the wrong choice" by your logic. So I don't get what you're insisting. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 220: / Line 220: @@
 ::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
-:::: There is a reason that counting the times is way better than building in interpolation in the way you suggest. It's because of the tuning fidelity issue. If I build in a weighting curve, then I am algorithmically giving permission for the most complex harmonies to be the most off, which I've argued is objectively the wrong choice if you want to target those harmonies. By contrast, by not having a falloff I am ensuring that if those harmonies are too off, the rest of the tuning better be worth the sacrifice in the tuning fidelity where it's most needed. This allows systems that are biased to simpler harmonies appear. I've expressed that already I'm not sure if weighting proportional to the square root of the odd-limit is too forgiving for complex harmonies, but some strange edos can start appearing if you bias too strongly for large odd-limits. For example, using proportional to the odd-limit implies [[67edo]] is a lower-absolute-error system for the [[17-oddd-limit]] than [[58edo]], which I suspect is happening because of the sharp 11 and 13 of 58edo being punished more strongly as a result, which I don't find convincing. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 15:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
+:::: There is a reason that counting the times is way better than building in interpolation in the way you suggest. It's because of the tuning fidelity issue. If I build in a weighting curve, then I am algorithmically giving permission for the most complex harmonies to be the most off, which I've argued is objectively the wrong choice if you want to target those harmonies. By contrast, by not having a falloff I am ensuring that if those harmonies are too off, the rest of the tuning better be worth the sacrifice in the tuning fidelity where it's most needed. This allows systems that are biased to simpler harmonies appear. I've expressed that already I'm not sure if weighting proportional to the square root of the odd-limit is too forgiving for complex harmonies, but some strange edos can start appearing if you bias too strongly for large odd-limits. For example, using proportional to the odd-limit implies [[67edo]] is a lower-absolute-error system for the [[17-odd-limit]] than [[58edo]], which I suspect is happening because of the sharp 11 and 13 of 58edo being punished more strongly as a result, which I don't find convincing. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 15:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
+::::: You've already given permission for whatever intervals beyond the limit you specify to be the most off. You've already allowed, by specifying the 25-odd-limit, intervals of 27 to be the most off, which is "objectively the wrong choice" by your logic. So I don't get what you're insisting. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)