Talk:20567edo: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 8:

::: Percentage helps, but I've noticed that absolute number of consistent interval pairs are more important. You raise a good point that there are "only" 10 inconsistent pairs with the 79-odd-limit, but that's only a 0.55% decrease from the 81-odd-limit. At what point does an edo's odd-limit have too many inconsistencies to be definitely not usable? And add to that, what consistency denominations are truly useful?

::: I would say in this case, no-61 81-odd-limit is a good point to stop. You can do fine without one specific super high prime, add 4 more to add more bang to your buck, the rest of the primes beyond 79 are badly approximated, and, it ends in a power of 3. Glazing? Possibly. But, this edo is already very niche, so selling it as an even higher limit beast will help fortify the image in its niche substantially. Besides, this glazing is not ''entirely'' baseless.

::: I would say in this case, no-61 81-odd-limit is a good point to stop. You can do fine without one specific super high prime, add 4 more to add more bang to your buck, the rest of the primes beyond 79 are badly approximated, and, it ends in a power of 3. Glazing? Possibly. But, this edo is already very niche, so selling it as an even higher limit beast will help fortify the image in its niche substantially. Besides, this glazing is not ''entirely'' baseless. --[[User:Eufalesio|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio|talk]]) 23:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

:: I found out a while ago that [[14348edo]] is nearly consistent to the entire 69-odd-limit, only missing 31/29 and it's octave complement with 50.2% relative error.--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::: Percentage helps, but I've noticed that absolute number of consistent interval pairs are more important. You raise a good point that there are "only" 10 inconsistent pairs with the 79-odd-limit, but that's only a 0.55% decrease from the 81-odd-limit. At what point does an edo's odd-limit have too many inconsistencies to be definitely not usable? And add to that, what consistency denominations are truly useful?
-::: I would say in this case, no-61 81-odd-limit is a good point to stop. You can do fine without one specific super high prime, add 4 more to add more bang to your buck, the rest of the primes beyond 79 are badly approximated, and, it ends in a power of 3. Glazing? Possibly. But, this edo is already very niche, so selling it as an even higher limit beast will help fortify the image in its niche substantially. Besides, this glazing is not ''entirely'' baseless.
+::: I would say in this case, no-61 81-odd-limit is a good point to stop. You can do fine without one specific super high prime, add 4 more to add more bang to your buck, the rest of the primes beyond 79 are badly approximated, and, it ends in a power of 3. Glazing? Possibly. But, this edo is already very niche, so selling it as an even higher limit beast will help fortify the image in its niche substantially. Besides, this glazing is not ''entirely'' baseless. --[[User:Eufalesio|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio|talk]]) 23:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
+:: I found out a while ago that [[14348edo]] is nearly consistent to the entire 69-odd-limit, only missing 31/29 and it's octave complement with 50.2% relative error.--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)