204ed96: Difference between revisions
ArrowHead294 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
ArrowHead294 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Theory == | == Theory == | ||
The 96th harmonic is too wide to be a useful equivalence, so 204ed96 is better thought of as a stretched version of [[31edo]]. Indeed, tuning the 96/1 ratio just instead of 2/1 results in octaves being [[stretched and compressed tuning|stretched]] by about 0.79{{c}}. The local [[The Riemann zeta function and tuning #Optimal octave stretch|zeta peak]] around 31 is located at 30.978382, which has a step size of 38.737{{c}} and an octave of 1200.837{{c}} (which is stretched by 0.837{{c}}), making 204ed96 extremely close to optimal for 31edo. | The 96th harmonic is far too wide to be a useful equivalence, so 204ed96 is better thought of as a stretched version of [[31edo]]. Indeed, tuning the 96/1 ratio just instead of 2/1 results in octaves being [[stretched and compressed tuning|stretched]] by about 0.79{{c}}. The local [[The Riemann zeta function and tuning #Optimal octave stretch|zeta peak]] around 31 is located at 30.978382, which has a step size of 38.737{{c}} and an octave of 1200.837{{c}} (which is stretched by 0.837{{c}}), making 204ed96 extremely close to optimal for 31edo. | ||
=== Harmonics === | === Harmonics === | ||