User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

(326 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 1:

== Wiki ==

Wiki discussion moved to [[User talk:SAKryukov/Wiki]] — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 November 30, 01:54 UTC''

== Introductions ==

Line 6:

Line 8:

: I'm not sure I'm answering in a technically correct way, please help me if I don't. To answer your question: will you take a look at my articles referenced on [[User:SAKryukov|my page]]? For example, I can explain how tonal systems work and what part of musical perception is poorly natural, and what part is cultural. I invented some microtonal musical instruments with some exceptional properties. You can try to play them right on your browser, and, if you have a touchscreen, with ten fingers...

: I'll first take a look at your Wiki page gladly answer if you have any questions...

lp if you followed the l (??? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]])

:: Hm... I can't seem to find the articles anymore... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Line 263:

Line 265:

::::: Sorry, I did not understand the answer, could you clarify? And what is "latter article"?No matter, I don't mind the use of "just intonation", only afraid of the situations when a reader understands it in some more concrete sense. I don't insist that my terms are better to coin them.

:::::: It would help if you followed the links in my last comment- I was telling you to follow the links to help you get a sense of what I meant, as the articles explained this better than I can. The term "latter" means the second of two, so the phrase "latter article" means "the second of two articles". --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

::::::: Please don't get irritated by this, but now I cannot find 1) what are those two articles, 2) what is "my last comment" :-) Here is what I want to advise: I think you greatly overestimate the ability of other people to navigate (I say only "navigate", not "understand", generally I understand you quite well). You overestimate just the vision, observation of what you said before, ability to associate it, and so on. For communication on such things, there is a great tool: links! The same goes about discussions with the numbers: most people don't imagine them well. (I personally have one of the kinds of the mathematical mind. People like me think abstractly but notoriously bad with numbers. Paradoxically, mathematics and dealing with concrete numbers are almost opposite traits :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 18:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

:::::::: I'm not irritated by this, rather, I can't help but laugh... Anyhow here are the links to the definitions of the terms you wanted to know about:

:::::::: [[tempering out]]

:::::::: [[fudging]]

:::::::: Hope this helps. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: Perhaps now this is my turn to laugh. I do know exactly these two links, but the issue was the association between those too links and your words referencing those, so your answer is not redundant information, it is used to restore the association. I actually asked about two associations: "1) what are those two articles, 2) what is "my last comment", but now it is not important, everything is already clear enough — thank you. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

:::::Lastly, I was thinking about those commas and have some consideration. Roughly, we need to understand that in a rational-number interval i=A/B makes deep physical sense only if A and B are small enough. This is related to the nature of aural perception of any organisms or even devices. If the numbers became 3-digit numbers or more, the accuracy of the rational number doesn't play its role. Let's see: there are two physical traits: 1) the sense of harmonics in the interval with small A and B; it is based that two oscillators in the ear come in resonance, but not necessarily on their fundamental frequencies, but some low-order harmonics, if harmonics are high, the effect is unnoticeable, 2) the perception of logarithmic distances between frequencies as equal. Now, #1 and #2 are in fundamental contradiction: 1) if all intervals are rational numbers, their system is never ever equidistant, so the equivalence of tonalities is impossible, 2) if intervals are equidistant, the ratio values are never rational, so we won't feel the perfect sense of harmony. So, the question is: with this trade-off, where is the reasonable choice? The common-practice system has chosen the compromise and gave more preference to #2 than before. 12-EDO gives amazingly good compromise, but we pretty easily can perceive the deviation from harmony. At the same time, our trait #1 is more accurate than #2. What is my conclusion? It can be a bit complicated in practice, but this is nothing but some intermediate idea. First, everything depends on the composition. Where we value the sense of equidistant notes? I don't think it is absolutely important in most cases. That said, when your calculations lead you to big natural numbers, A/B, you can easily give up having a rational number for a certain degree and use a mixture of rational numbers and real numbers. I do understand how weird it can be, this is just a vague idea. Another vague idea is that you might extend some tonal system but then classify the resulting tones and their functional roles into two classes: "degrees" and "non-degrees". A "non-degree" tone can have a limited role, it cannot be, for example, used as a root of a chord, and so on. I do understand that this is very weird and not elegant, this is just for discussion. The main point is: the contradictions and trade-offs in the tonal systems are unavoidable in principle, by the very nature of thins, sorry for possible truism. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

== Wiki ==

:::::: Given the trade off, I'd say that the reasonable choice is to try and approximate the rational values- especially 1-digit and 2-digit values- within a value of less than 3.5 cents wherever possible, as this is the kind of size difference where people won't really notice the deviation from harmony. As it happens, 159edo and a number of other EDOs in that area do a pretty good job with this from what I see. Yes, there are flaws, such as 159edo's inconsistent treatment of the 19 prime, but since 159edo represents the primes 5, 7 and 13 reasonably well, with the primes 3, 11, and 17 being represented by intervals that are less than a cent away from harmony, and since the primes 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17 are the primes that have the most to really offer, I think we have the most important facets covered where it counts the most. I should point out that the reason I value the sense of equidistant notes is that it enables a sense of uniformity and provides some measure of simplicity, but using a set of equidistant notes that is too small causes problems and doesn't respect the unequal distances between 1-digit and 2-digit values within good enough reason. I definitely try to extend the tonal system but then classify the resulting tones and their functional roles into two classes: "main tones" (akin to your idea of "degrees") and "variant tones" (akin to your idea of "non-degrees"). As far as I'm concerned, "variant tones" mainly act as chord roots during modulation- that is, when you're in the middle of trying to change keys- and don't do anything like that under most other circumstances, so yes "variant tones" do indeed have a more limited role compared to "main tones". Does all of this make sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

::::::: I understand. Oh, and it is great that you open to the pretty weird idea (because it can complicate things too much) of "non-degrees" under the name of "variant tones" (probably, clearer name). Yes, so far I think it all makes sense, but right now this is shooting off the heap (is that a correct idiom?). — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 18:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

:::::::: The phrase "shooting from the hip" is an actual idiom, but I don't know if you mean to say I'm "speaking or acting rashly, recklessly, or bluntly, without consideration of potential consequences" (which is what the idiom means) or not. I was trying to say that large EDOs like 159edo are one way of approaching a solution to the dilemma you're talking about, and I was trying to tell you why it might as a solution if done right. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: I haven't responded to a number of your posts, took a little time to start cleaning up on that matter. No, I did not have any doubt on the ''meaning'' of this idiom, which is international, I worried a bit only about the accuracy of its English form. By the way, I do not quite agree with your description of its semantics. However, the semantics of the idiom is the usual source of arguments. From practice and simple logic, I can see that "shooting from the hip" only means fast (intuitive) action, taken for a reason and, on the contrary to what you say, more typically, consciously, with pretty good "consideration of potential consequences". Why? Because by the very fact using of this idiom, the speaker clearly conducts the idea that the judgment was based on taking a risk. Which is exactly what I meant. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 November 30, 23:54 UTC''

:::::::::: Ah. While I see what you meant, it seems all the sources I have on the semantics of the phrase "shooting from the hip" do indicate that this idiom implies recklessness. I guess I don't know what the corresponding idiom for what you're talking about is in English. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::: No, this is not a "corresponding" idiom, this is an international idiom, in all cultures using it the phrase is a simple near-literal calc, no matter where the original is. And it "depends" on how to thread the term "reckless". If you address to the prototype, the kind of battle technique of this kind of shooting, sometimes called "Macedonian shooting" (I don't know why) imply that people decide to fight using this technique based on their training and pretty consciously, otherwise all those special-purpose squads would be easily exterminated by the enemies. :-) . As I say, the very fact of using this idiom is a kind of excuse that the speaker takes the changes. I a person makes this note, the saying itself is consciously. Maybe one can think this is compatible with the idea of being "reckless", not so sure... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 00:34 UTC''

:::::::::::: From what I see, the English phrase literally means "To discharge a firearm while it is held near the hip, without taking time to aim via the gunsights". The "reckless" thread comes from the lack of aim. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Well, you described the origin of the idiom very accurately. And that renders both "lack of the aim" or "without consideration" quite illogical, as the main goal of the technique is to have the aim destroy the target, same goes for the user of the idiom (not destruction, of course, just the goal of the action). — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 01:18 UTC''

== 24edo Harmony ==

Hey SA, do you think we have the chance to talk about the harmonic possibilities of 24edo in regards to 11/8 and 16/11 now that you have listened to "Folly of a Drunk"? I mean, judging from the absolute error amounts, I'd say that 24edo approximates 11/8 and 16/11 better than 22edo does... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

: We can, but I'm going to be somewhat busy, will hardly spend so much time. I'd better need to do some calculations before I'm ready to talk; this is a very fast thing but needs some distraction. First of all, I already admitted that my judgment on this EDO was not based on comprehensive considerations, as I only used the comparisons with "just intonation" in a very narrow sense of this expression, only the well-know system 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8, closely related to the common-practice one. I forgot to notice that my own research aimed to produce some extended sets of intervals renders that judgment obsolete. Based on that criteria, my old method of finding the EDOs produced only 12- 19- 31- 41-... -EDOs and missed some other EDOs. That said, I'm ready to reconsider 22-EDO.

:: Unfortunately, I must confess that I'm not as experienced with 22edo, so for dealing with 22edo properly, you'll want to talk to others on the Wiki. However, I myself am writing a song called "Space Tour" in an approximation of 159edo, and it mimics 12edo, 14edo, 17edo, 19edo, 22edo, 24edo, 27edo, 31edo, 35edo and 41edo, and these "retunings" (as I call them) rather closely match the real EDOs. Sure, you may notice a few notes are slightly different when you compare this song against the actual EDOs, but rest assured, this piece can still give you an approximation of ''some'' of the things these EDOs are capable of, though to be fair, it is a really long song, and after the 41edo-retuning, it goes on to a near-perfect 53edo as well before going on to use the near-perfect 159edo in the same way that the real 159edo is natively structured. I should also point out that I work with Locrian mode a lot, and this mode only really makes sense when you consider the Tyrant Antitonic's properties relative to the Tonic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

: As to “Folly of a Drunk”, it sound absolutely logical to my ear, and nice to hear. The only problem with it is: can you produce and publish some more? :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 November 30, 01:53 UTC''

:: I can indeed do that, but do prepare for a lot of dealings in 24edo and near-perfect 159edo. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

::: I know, but it would be very interesting to have and listen to that. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 00:06 UTC''

:::: I'm trying to work on a pretty long song called "Space Tour"- the song I alluded to earlier in which a near-perfect approximation of 159edo is used to mimic other edos. I have yet to think of how to write the last few sections however. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

:: Speaking of songs in 24edo, have you checked out "Anticipation"? That song showcases some of the other things that 24edo is capable of, and even outright uses 1edo, 2edo, 3edo, 4edo, 6edo and 8edo- though not in that order- before going to quartertone-enhanced traditional tonality in 24edo itself. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

::: I think I listened to everything I found in the links on your pages, including "Anticipation". It is interesting, but “Folly of a Drunk” is something special: Having microtonal structure in а clear melodic motion, plus its aesthetic effect, plus recognizable allusion with the classical presentation of possible "analogous" theme, multiplied by specific kind of humor — this is a different story. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 00:06 UTC''

:::: Really? "Folly of a Drunk" is ''that'' special? I have no idea as to exactly how I managed to pull off the emotional components since I have difficulty processing emotions... Truth be told, I came up with the catchy melodic line for "Folly of a Drunk" just by messing around... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::: Yes, this is what I think. I can describe it in a different way, but please try not to get offended, or something: your other pieces remind a lot of very usual things: ambient, science fiction, horror soundtracks, something like that, and only “Folly of a Drunk” hardly cannot be confused with something else, it is distinctly recognizable. At the same time, it follows some very traditional melodic structure, only mangled in some totally logical way. Yes, I understand if it is done by messing around, but maybe only because your intuition did not betray you in this case? My first impression was that you've elaborated a stable technique of interpretation of melodic themes in some "microtonal space". Apparently, your words tell me that it was false impression, but it only makes things more interesting :-) (Of course, taking into account that I know next to nothing about the art of musical composition. :-) After I received your very first comment on this page, first thing I did was listening to this piece. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 01:31 UTC''

:::::: I'm not actually offended by you thinking highly of this song- in fact, I'm actually pleasantly surprised by this. I have to say that the chord structure of "Folly of a Drunk" required more work- especially trying to make sure that the song changed keys properly around two thirds of the way through- furthermore, I also have to say that the chord structure is a driving element just like the melody is, and, if I recall correctly, I had to write the chords first in a number of cases. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::: For the record: you misread me here. I was afraid of being offensive not because of thinking highly of this piece, but because of feeling not so impressed by all other pieces — sorry. Indeed, I think that I heard enough of thins giving similar impressions, but only “Folly of a Drunk” is so special. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 07:03 UTC''

:::::::: Ah. I realise that a lot of my work is sci-fi, but I hope there's still interesting things about "Space Tour" in particular once that gets done. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: You know, you can think of it whatever you want, but I find almost all science fiction music totally boring. :-) I was deeply impressed by science fiction music only by Eduard Artemyev, first of all, in Solaris (1972, or course) and Stalker. Did you listen to it? But Artemyev is generally one оf the genius composers, isn't he? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 07:31 UTC''

::::: Besides, the name... I thought that the name of this piece is a kind of allusion to the original name of one Bruegel's painting, "The Folly of the World", and, weirdly, the motive of this piece reminded me of this painting. What? Is it just my fantasy? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 01:40 UTC''

:::::: In all honestly, I don't think I ever heard of the particular painting you referenced. In truth, this song was written to go along with a very specific scene in mind, though I won't share the totality of that scene at this time. On another note, I have to admit that "Space Tour" is another science-fiction-based song, though I hope there's at least something interesting about it once I get done. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::: Ha-ha, I guess, this is a good illustration of how art critics work: their fantasies find so far-reaching cultural references, associations, and enormously deep meanings, something that actual authors never thought of. :-)

::::::: Anyway, it would be good for you to know what is the famous painting your soundtracks comes with. :-) The official name is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlandish_Proverbs Flemish Proverbs (Netherlandish Proverbs)] after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder Pieter Bruegel the Elder]. This piece of art plays a very special role in culture. Just basically, it illustrates approximately 112 identifiable proverbs and idioms and also related to the author's vision of "absurdity, wickedness and foolishness". — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 05:53 UTC''

== Commas ==

Hey, SA, I think I ended up naming a few commas that I can't find names for on the [http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html Huygens-Fokker Foundation's list of intervals]- these would be the [[quartisma]], the [[nexuma|nexus comma]] and the [[symbiosma|symbiotic comma]], the [[Alpharabian comma]] and the [[Betarabian comma]]... What do you think of these names? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

: Sorry, nothing certain. Even though I'm familiar with many well-known comma names, I did not think enough of the the motivation and the correspondence between the nature of each comma and its naming. Besides, to make your considerations comprehensible, you probably need to explain everything in some definitive order: first, the schema of getting to one or another comma, which intervals or chains come to the comma, in what way, then, you need to present some rationale behind the suggested name, relating the nature (its role, significance, historical facts) and the proposed naming. More generally, I can see some specifically musical communication problems. It is not as trivial as the specific terminology not quite understandable by people from the outside word, no, this is some deficit of communication culture, resembling, say, irregularities of classical chemical nomenclature... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 00:24 UTC''

:: I have to admit I don't know what you mean by "schema" here. That said, I can tell you which intervals or chains come to the comma and in what way. I can also give some degree of rational behind the suggested name, relating the nature of the comma and the proposed meaning... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::: "Schema" has a very abstract meaning in the general case, and yes, you understood me correctly. Yes, I know you can tell that schema in each case, I only say, that before you do it, everything else is meaningless. I personally love (and often can) to play with words and create names, but I need a really good semantic background. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 01:47 UTC''

:::: In that case, since a worldview is an example of a schema, I guess I do in fact deal in some of them. However, I must also point out that I have Asperger's Syndrome, and people with Asperger's often struggle with abstractions. See Dr. Kenneth Roberson's [https://www.kennethrobersonphd.com/people-aspergers-think-part/ two] [https://www.kennethrobersonphd.com/people-aspergers-think-part-ii/ articles] on the subject. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::: Hm... I happened to read about this phenomenon but never faced such people. Anyway, from what I understand about it (and the references you've provided only confirmed my understanding), the "struggle" is not with the abstraction itself (abstraction is a fundamental trait of any cognitive activity), but only with the communication about abstractions, simply put, solving the problem of the choice of one of the possible meaning of the word, more specific vs. more general/abstract. In this particular case, I responded that 1) you recognized my implied meaning of schema correctly, 2) my construct "schema has a very abstract meaning" simply means that it does not have to be understood in any specific way, but only works as a generalization placeholder for the next part of the sentence, 3) its implied meaning is disclosed by the words "which intervals or chains come to the comma", 4) and the abstraction could be reduced the adding to these words "or something like that". I'm not sure if I made it clearer, but if not, this is not so important, because you already grasped the correct meaning anyway. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 05:35 UTC''

:::::: Hm... seeing as that's the case, I can tell you about my reasonings for the name of each of the commas I've mentioned if that's alright with you... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::: It can be interesting but perhaps later. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 07:35 UTC''

:::::::: Well, since I already typed out my reasoning, I might as well post it before I forget it or lose it, though do feel free to read about it later if need be...

:::::::: The Quartisma, 117440512/117406179, is the difference between a stack of five 33/32 quartertones and one 7/6 subminor third, and since 33/32 is a quartertone, while the comma itself is unnoticeable, I came up with the name "quartisma" based on "quartertone" and "schisma".

:::::::: The Nexus comma, 1771561/1769472, is the difference between a stack of three 128/121 Alpharabian diatonic semitones and a 32/27 minor third. The 128/121 semitone is an example of pure 11 prime interval, while the 32/27 minor third is an example of pure 3 prime interval, and both the 11 prime and the 3 prime are significant in their own ways. Specifically, while the 3 prime has its connections to the diatonic scale, and the perfect intervals 3/2 and 4/3, the 11 prime can be mathematically calculated to be the virtually the best prime for representing quartertones in terms of ratio simplicity, with three 33/32 quartertones plus a 4096/3993 quartertone being the simplest known combination of two distinct, rational quartertone intervals that can be added together to make a 9/8 whole tone. Since tempering out 1771561/1769472 joins the 3 prime chain and the 11 prime chain together, it makes sense to call it the "nexus comma".

:::::::: The Symbiotic comma is the difference between 77/72 and 2187/2048, and the sum of the quartisma and the nexus comma. It gets its name both from the fact that it is tempered out in such notable temperaments as vishnu, newt, kwai, supers, guiron and amity, and, from the fact that it also makes a good extension to a number of other temperaments such as canou.

:::::::: the Alpharabian comma, 131769/131072, is the difference between a stack of two 128/121 diatonic semitones and a 9/8 whole tone. The comma gets its name from the association between al-Farabi with the 33/32 quartertone- which is part of the 2-3-11-based tuning. Specifically, it comes through an analogy between the familiar association between Pythagoras and 3-prime-based tuning on one hand, and the aformementioned association between al-Farabi with the 33/32 quartertone on the other. This analogy is furthered by the fact that 131769/131072 is similar to that of the Pythagorean comma in that it relates diatonic semitones to the 9/8 whole tone.

:::::::: The Betarabian comma, 264627/262144, is the sum of the schisma and the biyatisma (121/120), as well as the sum of the Alpharabian comma and the rastma (243/242). The term "Betarabian" is a derivative of "Alpharabian", and was coined on account of both the rastma being the comma which separates primary and secondary 2-3-11-based intervals and the term "Alpharabian" itself containing the word "Alpha" within it- all that was needed was for "Beta" to be put in place of the "Alpha".

:::::::: I hope this all makes sense now... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: It's fine to have it here now, but you cannot expect that I digest it right away. :-) The only thing I wanted to ask you in first place: is *arabian related to Arabic culture? I did not expect to face such a crazy word play: it is related not to "Arabic", but to the name of our Kazakhstan location "Farabi", with Arabic form "al" with the meaning close to the preposition "from", which makes the name of a person "from Farab", and the resulting name associated with the letter name "Alpha". After replacement of "Alpha" by "Beta" the name "Farabi" is totally dissolved, due to elimination of "F", forget about "al-". To see the real sophistication of it, we also have to remember that the form "al-" is Arabic, but Arabic analogs of Greek "Alpha" and "Beta" are read differently: "Alif" and "Ba". The wordplay is certainly pretty smart. And what kind of a person is supposed to figure out such puzzles? :-)

:::::::::: The term "Alpharabian" comes from "Alpharabius"– another name for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Farabi Abu Nasr al-Farabi]– and was chosen due to the fact that 33/32, also known as the the "al-Farabi Quartertone", is the primary limma of the 11-limit, a fact which lends itself to the idea of 2.3.11 tuning being called "Alpharabian tuning" in the same way that 2.3 tuning is called "Pythagorean tuning". I imagine that the rest of what you've said about the wordplay is quite true, seeing as I didn't know the meaning of the name "al-Farabi" aside from its connection to the aforementioned person. It is specifically the name "Alpharabius" and the related adjective "Alpharabian" that bear the association with the letter name "Alpha". I'm sorry, I should have mentioned the remaining specifics, but I was struggling with the specifics as to how to express this complicated etymology. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::: Got it. Thank you for another piece of information that makes the naming issue even more complicated. :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 16:38 UTC''

:::::::::::: I hope the complication doesn't turn you off... I guess you really were right about musicians naming intervals in the most complicated and convoluted ways. Oh, and yes, I can think of one example where musicians have actually given a musical interval a perverse name, but I won't go into the specifics of that here. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Turning off..? Not at all, just the opposite: I enjoy and never miss a chance for a linguistic exercise. :-) As to the interval naming and other names, it depends on your understanding of "perverse name". To my taste, most of those names are perverse, but this is not directly related to linguistic itself, but more to the overly ''ad hoc'' manner of thinking. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 18:14 UTC''

:::::::::::::: So, SA, I'm curious... do you like the names I've given the commas? Or, is it too ad hoc for your taste? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Sorry, not ready; and I don't want to give you an absolutely immature opinion. Rather, I would need some time; and I'm pretty busy. I won't forget, don't worry. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 19:36 UTC''

::: Oh, great! Huygens-Fokker Foundation's list of intervals you referenced in the first paragraph of this section. It can help me to explain to you what is that very characteristic of communication problems I can see in the musicians. In the list, you can see the set of rational-number intervals and some names. Hopefully, all rational numbers in the list are irreducible fractions. What information does this page carry? Next to nothing. The only possible use is this: when you already got some interval from some other source, say, from your own calculation, you can check up: is it one of the well-known intervals or not, and, if it is, what is its well-known name? Even this information has some uncertainty, because, strictly speaking, "well-known" is something uncertain, so the only definitive information you get is this: is my interval on the Huygens-Fokker Foundation's list? :-). And yes, this is exactly what you've checked in this case. You cannot learn anything about any of the concrete commas from this page. For the contrast example, look at any good Wikipedia page. Sometimes you can start from some reference and end up with the study of an entire field of science... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 1, 02:06 UTC''

== Space Tour ==

Hey SA, I just finished another song- "Space Tour". It's like 20 minutes long, and I know you find much science-fiction-type songs boring, but this song tells a story. I posted on my userpage, and hope you like it! --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

: I finally got myself some time to listen to it all paying attention it deserves. Yes, this is a very interesting piece, and a complicated one, by the way, and it does tell some imaginary story. Still, I certainly like "Folly..." more. I know, I once realized that all musical aesthetics is about some combination of the predictable and the surprise. Probably, this is a total truism, because many said something similar. Back to "Space Tour"... first of all, I'm interested to understand, what exactly do you mean by "mimicking" an EDO? One thing about the sound: I miss low timbers and low voice in general. Don't you think this is a present-day trend to work more on higher-pitch sound, higher-frequency noises, everything is higher? Where is that deep voice? Any comments on it? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 18:21 UTC''

:: When I talk about one EDO "mimicking" another, I refer to a larger EDO using a collection of its own steps to approximate the actual steps of a smaller EDO without the larger EDO actually being a superset of the smaller EDO. As for the deep voices and low timbres, they are often used as chord roots in music- especially the more common variety of music that is built from the bass upwards. I personally think that building music from the bass upwards music like this is but one of two ways to construct good music- the other being to build music from the treble downwards. Music built from the treble downwards (treble-down music) is different from music built from the bass upwards mainly in terms of what I call the "direction of construction", as otherwise the two systems are mirror images of one another. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::: I think I understand the idea, not sure that this is the correct understanding. First of all, a larger EDO is ''almost never'' a superset of a smaller EDO, because it would be the defeat of the purpose to provide a better approximation to harmonic intervals using more tones. Naturally, you can use a ''subset'' of a larger EDO, corresponding to some smaller EDO (corresponding tones can be simply identical, but only approximately) and use this subset. Perhaps it's just the term "mimicking" sounded confusing to me. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 18:55 UTC''

:::: Yeah, the way you put it here is more or less another valid definition of how I'm using the term "mimicking" here, as not every possible subset of the larger EDO actually approximates the smaller EDO, and sometimes, more than one subset of the larger EDO can do the job. For the record, 159edo does have 53edo as a subset- and this is not considered "mimicking"- but that's okay, because 53edo is really really good in its own right when it comes to the 3 prime. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::: As to deep voices: I meant something much more basic: to me, more deep voices and generally the amount of lower voices sounds more tolerable for the ears, and overly high, especially high-frequency noises, sounds more irritating. I noticed that historically the present-day trend is to emphasize higher pitches, even bass and baritone singers are somewhat rarer these days. I did not mean something like "building from the bass", however, this is an interesting topic. Notably, the Baroque perception of music was different from the modern. These days, we typically hear the main themes in a higher-pitch part and then pay attention to the other detail, including bass. In Baroque, basses played much more fundamental role. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 18:55 UTC''

:::: To me in music that is built from the bass upwards, the lowest bass serves as the driver of how the accompaniment moves- it is the line that all of the chords and stuff are built on top of, and the lowest bass line, along with the melody, both exert influence on one another at different times. The problem I have with too many deep voices is that even thirds in the bass can sound rather grating when the notes in question are too low, more so than with higher pitches. Higher pitches are more irritating when they're played in the wrong timbers and or when played too loud. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::::: Right. Needless to say I only explain my personal feeling about it. Yes, the "build from the bass" is an interesting topic, only I'm pretty far from it and the composition in general. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 19:32 UTC''

:::::: I understand. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

: I'm busy with my platform and keyboard programming. I decided to take a much wider road: develop some more and some replacement visual components corresponding to different keyboards, including a new one suitable for your paradiatonic constructs — my idea is to present 7 scales at the same time on a single keyboard, still thinking of some form of switching modes on the fly, combined with transpositions, or something like that. At the same time, I implemented a prototype for the playable lattice presented by Kite Giedraitis: [[Color_notation|Color_notation]]. Even though it is called "notation", the main point here is the choice of the tonal system itself, which can be reduced to the choice of a 4-generator set, and its mapping to the geometry. (Why, why musicians often mess up musical and notation aspects together? Didn't they figure out that tight coupling is a big anti-pattern?) I've chosen to implement the 27-key variant, which I consider as a good variant of an "extended just" scale. Are you familiar with this particular system? What do you think? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 18:39 UTC''

:: Ah. That makes sense. While I am familiar with color notation to an extent, I should point out that Kite and I have a disagreement when it comes to the usage of intervals like the 40/27 grave fifth. For instance, Kite thinks that interval ought to just be avoided whenever possible, while I think that 40/27 is actually useful when in the right position within a scale and in the hands of the right composer. If you are asking whether or not I'm familiar with a 27-key system, I have to say that I'm mostly familiar with the traditional 12-key layout when it comes to actually playing on instruments. That said, I do think I'm willing to experiment with other key layouts- that is, assuming I ever have the funds to get my hands on such things as I really don't have a lot of money. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::: Any references to those arguments? By the 27-key system, I meant the particular layout on the Kite's page, [[Color_notation|first picture here]]. It is already playable on my prototype, you can try it out. Do you want to experiment with other playable keyboards? Then I can offer you my platform and my help... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 19:28 UTC''

:::: Here is the [[User talk:TallKite#Diatonic Scales|main example]]. Of course, this one is very civil, but I have been rude to the man on other occasions- even though I eventually apologized for it. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::::: Thank you! Perhaps I can see some (potential?) weak points in your arguments. First, you don't explain your understanding of "proper". You need to understand one fundamental thing, something usually beyond the comprehension of most people, except those with certain backgrounds: the ''scope of applicability''. If you make some statement insisting on the application of any principle, you have to know its scope. In theory, it's very typical when the scope of applicability is unknown at first (is considered more universal than it actually is), so the limitations of the scope comes into play only when a more general theory is accepted and proven. (Let me give you one example: one theorist and microtonalist claimed that 31-EDO I presented to him makes no musical sense, because, say, ♯C is lower than ♭D, which is an "absurd". I argued that this is merely my notation, and his problem is that he is implicitly using the notion of accidentals, but the applicability of the notion itself may be out of the scope in the microtonal scope, or at least it needs to be proven.) Another problem I can see is that you may underestimate the power of ''small'' natural number N/D in rational-number intervals. Indeed, as this power is based on the physics and physiology of perception, the ''quality'' of the resonator comes into play. Taking it into account, you may face the situation when two intervals like 32/27 and 77/64 are clearly recognized as different melodically, but make no difference to the sense of the harmony, only because 77 and 64 are pretty big, and their small prime factors don't make a big difference.

:::::: When I say "proper" in this context, I'm referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothenberg_propriety Rothenberg propriety]. Furthermore, I'm aware of the power of small rational intervals, and both [[7/5]] and [[6/5]] strongly imply a fundamental other than the Tonic by means of the virtual fundamental effect- this won't do at all as far as I'm concerned, as I like tonal stability. At least [[8/5]] has the Tonic as a shared harmonic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::: Aha, thank you for the clarification. I'll try to sort it out and take it into consideration later. For now, I'll complete the playable keyboard based on the exact same layout and the tonal system as Kite's; it won't prevent its modification or development some of variants of it in near future. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 20:14 UTC''

:::::::: For the record, [[27/16]] has the Tonic as a virtual fundamental as well, and seems to be the strongest example of a major sixth above the Tonic in this respect- [[5/3]], although simpler, implies a different note as the fundamental- again, this weakens tonal stability. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: Again, among other things, I'll need to hear some examples by my own ears before I can evaluate it. I'm at the beginning of it, but ultimately I hope to have a convenient playground for doing such things. It already works for EDOs, so it should for the rational-number intervals and systems. Also, I have a comparison application based on circular keyboards, it works nicely and compares with just one intonation system, and I started to generalize it. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 20:26 UTC''

:::::::::: I'll be happy to provide some examples, at least for the sake of comparing 5/3 and 27/16, though I'll only do practice pieces for this so you can hear the differences in nature between these two intervals. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::: Later, later... It can be done in different ways, but this is how we did it: I developed a recorder for one of the keyboard applications (important for remote lessons and seminar, this is how they really use it), will add it to all other applications. My colleague plays some sequence and sends me via a chat, I copy and play it. It's pretty much like exchange of MIDI sequences: not audio, but event storage. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 20:50 UTC''

:::::::::::: Okay, I know you're probably busy, but I still figured I'd give you some sound samples for you to listen to when you're ready. This audio sample track contains two chords consisting of C7, E7, G7 and A7. For both chords, the C7 is standard in terms of tuning while the E7 is flattened by 13.69 cents and the G7 is sharpened by 1.96 cents. The only difference between the two chords is the tuning of the A7, as it is tuned 5.87 cents sharp in the first chord, but 15.64 cents flat in the second chord. If you turn the volume up on your computer (don't turn it up ''too'' loud though), you should be able to hear a virtual C3 fundamental for the first chord, and a virtual F3 fundamental for the second chord.

:::::::::::: [[File:Interval_Test.mp3]]

:::::::::::: This difference in virtual fundamentals illustrates how the difference in tuning between the two versions of the A7 give the otherwise identical chords different harmonic properties- hence the reason for my preference of 27/16 over 5/3 as the interval for the major sixth. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Thank you very much, but you see, it may sound surprising, but I cannot hear much in these settings. To grasp it, I'll need to play it by myself. This is fairly simple. Let me give you an example and list some missing points. First, when you say "contains two chords consisting of C7, E7, G7 and A7", it may mean two "complex chords", such as first, C7+ E7 and second, G7+A7, or something else. When you name chords, I don't care about some detail, but need to know: which C7? in what tonal system? Usually, people using this notation assume 12-EDO. When you say "flattened" or "sharpened", I would need to know which degrees are changed. Even better to give not cent notation, but directly rational-number notation. This is one intentionally simplified example: you say "play C6 as 1, 5/4, 3/2, 5/3 followed by C6 as 1, 5/4, 3/2, 27/16, hear the difference" with your comment on what "weakens tone stability" and other function-related comments. With EDO, you could use the terms such as 12-EDO 3rd, 12-EDO 6th, possibly with ♯/♭. With other EDOs, ♯/♭ are ambiguous, so I add the number of microtones relative to the degree, such as: "41-EDO ♯2 6th". Then I'll easily play absolutely anything, no matter what you specify. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 00:39 UTC''

:::::::::::::: So, you need to play the audio file when you're by yourself? I understand. Still, given your comments, it sounds like I should perhaps clarify things for you. In this sound file, the two CM6 chords are both built on a C7 that has a frequency of roughly 2093.0045224048 Hz. The first CM6 chord has the configuration of roughly 1/1-5/4-3/2-27/16, while the second CM6 chord has the configuration of roughly 1/1-5/4-3/2-5/3. Because a note forming a 5/3 ratio with C occurs very early in the harmonic series of F and 5/3 does not occur as an interval distance from C in C's own harmonic series, or even the C's own subharmonic series, the 1/1-5/4-3/2-5/3 configuration of the CM6 chord has a strong virtual fundamental effect that implies a Tonic of F even when F itself is not a direct component of the chord, thus destabilizing the 1/1-5/4-3/2-5/3 chord on C in relation to the key of C Major. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: I guess that at the end of the day, the core idea of my approach to rational intervals and music is that while small rational intervals between the ''right two notes'' in a scale can establish and or cement a sense of tonality, small rational intervals between the ''wrong two notes'' in a scale can easily disrupt and or destabilize a sense of tonality by means of the virtual fundamental effect and or the lowest shared harmonic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Yes, I can understand it. And thank you for the description on the chord example, it is very close to my guess and now is clear. Today, I got another new idea; it happened when I mentioned "playground". I'll postpone this paradiatonic application and first will try to suggest something similar, but closer to the idea of "Playground". This application will accept user's tonal values and put them in a simple yet ready-to use keyboard. This way, you could combine random ideas, try out by playing and listening, and change the repertoires of available tones in seconds. Doesn't it sound interesting? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 02:22 UTC''

:::::::::::::::: The "Playground" idea does sound interesting, though the question remains as to how exactly to program complicated tonal values. On another note, when you say "Yes, I can understand it," what is the "it" you are referring to? Sorry for the massive edit, but I didn't feel like I was being clear. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: Well, I think I can understand your consideration of the sense of tonality, disruption, concepts you've shared before.

:::::::::::::::::: Right. I guess that means my only question on this front concerns whether or not my aforementioned concepts and considerations in this sphere actually make logical sense in light of known phenomena like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental virtual fundamental effect] and your own observations of the sound sample of two different CM6 chords that I provided. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: First of all, the phenomenon of <EDIT>missing fundamental<end EDIT> goes outside the problems of tonal systems, and I'm not sure if you understand it or disagree. I suspect you overestimate its importance. We can afford to ignore this phenomenon for almost all practical purposes. By the way, the case when an overtone suggests a missing degree of a chord is more important. This is why so-called "power chord" works. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 08:30 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::: If an overtone can suggest missing chord degrees, it stands to reason that an undertone can do the same thing. For example, when high-pitched power chords are put through a more extensive version of the same process used to produce extra bass sounds, they generate minor chords. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::: I do in fact disagree with you when it comes to the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside the problems of tonal systems. The way I see it, the Tonic is at its strongest when it not only has the smallest possible rational intervals relative to all the notes in the scale, but is also the note that can generate all the other notes in the set purely through its own overtone series and undertone series. It's not just one of these facets that provides a sense of tonality but both. If tonality is like an entire building, then fundamental frequencies matching the tonic's pitch class are like the type of material that makes for the strongest type of foundation- does this analogy make any practical sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::: I never meant "the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside...", it was a typo, sorry. Please see above: <EDIT>...<end EDIT>. Are you sure you understand the phenomenon correctly? In this Wikipedia article, some important considerations are missing. It needs some time to describe the idea and the questionable parts. It actually comes to theoretical mechanics (not "theoretical mechanics" learned by engineers, but the real thing, mostly the formalism of Lagrange, Hamilton, and then Emmy Noether), where the orthogonal space of modes can be understood, as well as the role of linearity and non-linear effects. (The usual myth of musicians is to call the physical-mathematics basis of music "acoustics", but in fact, there is next to nothing about real acoustics in music theory, but there is a lot of theoretical mechanics, abstract algebra, infinite-dimension functional spaces, theory of numbers, and the like.) Even for linear mechanics, this Wikipedia article considers only the sets of "similar" modes, like string or air vibrations with different number of nodes. Real life is more complicated. On this site, or maybe on some referenced sites, I saw a simple marimba example with some unrelated modes (all real modes do not interact due to linearity, but some modes are also "unrelated"). Now, we can always have a fundamental on an unrelated type of modes, which is lower than the most perceivable fundamental, and, in this case, these frequencies can be also totally unrelated, without any integer-number fractions. ...I understand my text is messy here. If you are interested, I can explain it properly. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 20:35 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::: Thanks for the clarification. Still, missing fundamentals, from what I gather, are important to tonality by virtue of their implying the existence of an ''actual'' fundamental frequency that generates the note set in question within a reasonable degree of approximation- unnoticeable commas notwithstanding. Yes, actual fundamentals and the missing fundamental effect are two different mechanisms, and indeed there are parts of Wikipedia's explanation that are questionable and it wouldn't be the first such instance. Nevertheless, the end result is that the missing fundamental effect highlights actual musical relationships- without the highlighted note in question actually being physically present. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::: Hm... Fundamentally (pun unintended), there is no difference between "tones" and "overtones", that's the key. When a sound wave reaches our ears, the information on the way of its generation is already lost. And yet, we "perceive" the audible modes as such, and mentally associate them with some instrument/oscillator, but it happens only because we hear pretty much what we expect to hear — we basically know how a certain type of musical instrument should behave. This is not pure, but a conceptual perception. That said, if we produce some totally alien sound, without an attempt to model any known real-life mechanical objects, there won't be any mode perception. Or, perhaps, the frequencies can be sensed as the "modes" of a speaker device, which is pretty much the same — no modes, there is no implied object having the modes. If it sounds unlikely, here is one less idealized example: throat singing. When many people hear this singing for the very first time, they often cannot realize what's going on, and later cannot reproduce it. We find it difficult to reproduce not because of physical difficulties. No, we simply don't have a model of what's going on, don't see any analog in our previous experience. Likewise, I saw many people nearly incapable of pronouncing a very simple sound of a foreign language or a combination... This is all the mental model issue, no more no less. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 22:53 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::: If this is the case, then there is no difference between "tones" and "undertones" either. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::: True. Those are the attributes of some model of an instrument/oscillator. Even if the model is mental, it suggests that some *-tones are the properties of the same object. Without this object, the sound is just an abstract set of frequencies and complex amplitudes (or real amplitudes and phases, which is the representation of the same thing) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 23:46 UTC''

::::::::::::::::::::: By the way, do you know about the nonlinear properties of our aural system? It was even used in historical organs. I mean, the phenomenon has nothing to do with brain processing. The sound is physically generated in the head out of the sound waves. It can generate a sound which does not physically present in the air, say, combination frequencies which cannot appear in any linear systems due to the superposition principle. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 20:35 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::: Oh yes, I know all about that. In fact, while some consonances- such as those involving sum tones and difference tones- are based on a linear mathematical relationship (as noted by [[User:CritDeathX|Sam Pulley]] in [[User talk:CritDeathX #Ideas of Consonance|a conversation we had about the matter]]), there is an equivalent type of consonances that seems to be based on what I call a "contralinear" mathematical relationship- these particular tones being what I call "contrasum" and "contradifference" tones. We seem to need a new set of mathematical symbols in order to shorten the process of solving the mathematical problems involved in finding these contralinear tones. For example, a 10:12:15 minor triad is identical to a pitch relationship in which the frequencies are related the the following mathematical relationship 1/4:1/5:1/6. In order to solve for the contrasum and contradifference tones with the current set of mathematical relationships, we would currently need to take the multiplicative inverse of each of the fractions in the 1/4:1/5:1/6 ratio, solve for sum and difference tones among the resulting whole number ratios, and then take the multiplicative inverse of the answers we get- or something like that. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::: I would not be so sure. :-) What are you talking about? sum/difference frequencies need at least some mode interaction. But such interaction is by definition a non-linearity. The concept of "mode" fundamentally means that they are orthogonal, the subject of the superposition principle. Roughly speaking, modes don't see each other. When you project two laser lights on two different points and the beams pass across each other, none of the beams affect another one. Non-linearity can happen when the media is linear. For example, when the dielectric permittivity somehow depends on the value of the electric field of the wave, the change created by one beam warps the wave distribution of another beam, so it deflects. Normally, non-linearity happens with very high intensities (of anything). And yes, more sophisticated emission on sum/difference frequencies also takes place. Only all of it is non-linearity, again, by the definition. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 22:17 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::: I'm talking about talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone Combination tones], and also about additional pairs of tones that have a relationship to the logarithmic curve of sound perception akin to that of linear tones, only these other tones are along a decidedly non-linear curve. It would help more to go into an example, I think. Say you have a dyad (two note chord) consisting of frequencies of 440 Hz and 528 Hz. I imagine you know more about the combination tones that can result from this set of frequencies that I do, as well as how the frequencies of the combination tones are related to the actual tones by addition and subtraction, right? Well, Sam says that the linear relationship between the frequencies the actual tones and the combination tones leads to a sort of consonance, but, I'm saying that there are another set of tones related to that set of actual frequencies in a manner that is decidedly non-linear, yet is percieved to be just as consonant. In this case, we see the sum and difference tones resulting from 440 Hz and 528 Hz are 968 Hz and 88 Hz respectively, however, when we check the frequency relationships between all the pitches involved, we see a distinct set of intervals. The frequencies of 528 and 440 Hz form a 6/5 ratio, the frequencies of 528 Hz and 968 Hz form an 11/6 ratio, and the frequencies of 88 Hz and 440 Hz form a 5/1 ratio. If we take these ratios and line them up in such a way as to reflect the pitches involved from lowest to highest, we get a chord, that consists of the following steps 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, am I right? Now, if we take the multiplicative inverses of the ratios in the sequence, we get 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11. Now, since we know that the interval between the 5/1 and 6/1 in the chord 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, is identical to the interval between the 1/55 and 1/6 in the chord 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11- both being 6/5- and since we now want to find what I'm calling the "contrasum" and "contradifference" tones of 440 Hz and 528 Hz, we can assume that 440 Hz doubles as the 1/6 interval and that 528 Hz doubles as the 1/5 interval. Since multplying 440 by 6 gives you 2640, and since multiplying 528 by 5 also gives you 2640, that means that 2640 Hz is the "contradifference" tone to 440 Hz and 528 Hz. Since 2640 Hz corresponds to the 1/1 in the 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11 chord, we now can solve for the "contrasum" tone in one of several ways- for the sake of simplicity, we'll just divide 2640 by 11 in order to find the frequency of the "contrasum" tone represented in the chord by the ratio of 1/11, and this tone turns out to be 240 Hz. Once you arrange the 2640 Hz frequency and the 240 Hz frequency in a chord together with the original 440 Hz and 528 Hz, you find that the resulting chord is just as consonant as the chord consisting of 88 Hz, 440 Hz, 528 Hz, and 968 Hz- once one takes the direction of chord construction into account. If you keep repeating this proceedure with different frequencies with different intervals, you'll eventually have a better idea as to the nature of the pitch relationships that I'm calling "contralinear". --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::: Then please read this Wikipedia article and see that this is a non-linear phenomenon. This is exactly what I explained before and in contradiction with your "on a linear mathematical relationship". I understand that you might mean something different, but then it would mean that you did not respond to my considerations about linearity and diverted the discussion to something else. Either way, you are avoiding the essence of things. In your last message, you again ignore my explanations related to non-linearity and address the mass of the facts. Please understand, nothing is resolved by the mass. In mathematics you refer to, there is only the common notion of linearity, roughly speaking, A * x + B, without higher-power members (other functions can be represented by Lorenz). This simple property leads to the fact that waves don't interact unless they penetrate the non-linear head or other non-linear media. :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 01:20 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: At first, I thought you were talking about something different- you know, the non-linear logarithmic curve of sound perception. I wasn't talking about the physical non-linearity of the system and the particular set of mathematical relationships associated with that, as indeed I'm not a physicist. I have to admit I don't know enough about physics to know some of those specifics, and I'm sorry for not addressing that properly. Indeed I was working with the common notion of "linearity", and, now that I think of it, I suspect Sam was too. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::: First of all, it tells me that we always will be able to solve those communication problems. I also have something for this purpose: tons of patience; and also I'm not afraid of looking too stupid. Okay, will you now look at new Playground section? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 01:47 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::: Come to think of it, I think we actually need to speak to Sam about his [[User:CritDeathX/Sam's Idea Of Consonance|ideas of consonance]], as well as about how to flesh out the idea of "contralinear tones" based on our discussion. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::: I just looked it through. I'm not quite sure. Don't you think he might confuse "consonance" with some other quality like "resolution", "stability", or something more complicated? On the other hand, perhaps the term "consonance" has other meanings I don't quite understand... Also, historically the attitudes and even "rules" related to "consonance" have changed. But I don't think it changed the understanding of consonance. In my understanding, not the notion itself was changing, but some kind of attitude, understanding of "acceptable degree of dissonance". Closer to modern times, "dissonant" structures became more and more acceptable and more wanted, pleasing in some ways. And I think this is good. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 22:31 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, we won't know for sure if we don't talk to him, that much is a given. However, it is definitely the case that there's more than one type of "consonance"- [[harmonic entropy]] minima being a notable example. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::: I don't know, really. How about two examples? I'm absolutely new to "harmonic entropy" though. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 00:02 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, "concordance" (as mentioned in the harmonic entropy article) is one example. Another example can be derived from the fact that 7/5 is a concordant interval, yet, [[10/7]]- 7/5's more discordant [[octave complement]]- is also considered "consonant", but this consonance is clearly of a different variety from "concordance"- I'd term 10/7's type of consonance "inverse concordance", at least until we can think up a better name. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh, and remember what I was talking about when I mentioned "connectivity" before? Basically, "connectivity"- for lack of a better term at the moment- is the type of "consonance" that only exists between a given pitch class and other pitch classes that are generated by the first pitch class's overtone series and undertone series- it's the kind of consonance that seems to do the lion's share of the work when it comes to establishing tonality. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, I'm having to invent terminology here, but I'm alluding to stuff that I suspect is very much real in some form or fashion. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]])

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do have some more detailed prelimiary ideas on "connectivity" in particular on [[User:Aura/Aura's Ideas of Consonance|my page concerning my ideas of consonance]]. What's perhaps more noteworthy is that I think I have an idea for how to isolate connectivity mathematically- albiet expressed in some rather unsophisticated terms. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::: I think I know one of the problems we're having- the fact is that differing fields of study use the same words in different ways and with different meanings. That might be contributing to our communication issues just between the two of us. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::: I don't think it's a significant problem. Indeed, some people are very much confined to the "profession", then it's difficult, and in practice often an unsolvable problem. It's important to see that the world is only one, and all those "here in chemistry is not like there in physics" reflects more the cognitive limitations of people. As to us, I see that we can resolve such problems. The lack of some parts of education or weak understanding of certain things — this can be a serious problem, not terminology. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 23:55 UTC''

::::::::::::::::: Now, about the problem, how "exactly to program complicated tonal values". First, the problems are solved using the "divide and conquer" method and "separation of concerns". In particular, tone values can be abstracted from the technical means of sound production. Another thing is: it's good to "think by hands". (In our case, "hands" is the generalization of several things: hands, fingers, hearing, etc.) When you don't understand how to solve the problem, of, course, think about understanding but also start working with incomplete understanding and uncertainties. As you try, you can get a better feeling of the problem, will be able to get rid of some illusionary ideas and get new ones... Moreover, in some analogous ways, I many times recommended people to... avoid reading literature. Here is what I mean: it's good to try to solve a problem from scratch by yourself. Why? First, you won't miss a pretty rare chance of inventing something really new. More realistically, when you read, you don't quite understand reading at first, because the illusionary understanding is quite common, besides, you can be affected by some well-established ideas and reduce your chances for a fresh look. And when you tried hard and broke some of your teeth at the problem, you can use what you learned, and then you will ready with much better understanding. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 04:01 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::: There are definitely a lot of merits to that approach, but in my experience, incomplete data can lead to wrong conclusions. This is especially true in cases where the data is wrongly interpreted- or worse, outright ignored- though it would be ill-advised for me to talk about specific examples of these sorts of things here and now for a variety of reasons- not the least of which is the potential for pointless arguments. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: I should have said that it also depends on individual traits, but I thought this is too obvious. Incomplete data? This is what is our brain is sharpened for. I have some arguments in favor of dealing with incomplete data and looking at this incompleteness as a normal thing. First of all, data is always incomplete, when it comes to science. Not all people can interpret an incomplete set of facts objectively, but being misled by other people is worse. Come to think about, this is because we actually tend to be convinced too easily. This is the result of our social skills, social adaptation mechanism. The observation of so many heated discussions should not fool us, this is not the dominant trend. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 08:45 UTC''

::::::::::::: By the way, do you really still use MP3?! It is not just obsolete, it is stone age, with ridiculous quality and compression. Top Web standard is .opus, is supported by everything. Probably, MP3 is alive only due to the existence of the devices like car audio — nothing is so conservative as those weird people designing such devices. :-)

:::::::::::::: Unfortunately, Musescore 3- the program I used to make music- does not support .opus files. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: This is not important. Okay, Musescore is obsolete in this aspect, but it doesn't matter. It's very usual that you use some standards (sometime proprietary) for everyday work, but something different for publications. This is not a problem; you can convert anything to anything. Most universal FFMpeg does it all on all platforms. Latest news in containers and codecs are amazing, by the way. First of all, this is availability of open-source no-royalty AV1 codec (now even with reasonably fast encoder) for absolutely standard WebM/Matroska containers. It compresses my already compressed phone video 10 times without any noticeable loss of quality. Modern raster graphics standard is WebP, it totally renders obsolete JPEG, PNG, and GIF (because animation is also supported) and even TIFF and all lossless standards, because even lossless compression is better than nearly anything else. And for 2D vector, SVG remains the only standard; you use it. I can show my presentation, it's very interesting (in turn, I rendered obsolete all those offices presentation packages, provide open-source and very lean browser-based alternative; if interested, I'll give you a link) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 02:14 UTC''

:::::::::::::::: Perhaps you can convince Musescore 3's developers to enable the support of things like .opus files. I know that Musescore has many of the kinds of options I actually need for composition, so there's that. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: Well, I learned to brainwash people less and do more by myself, even though I sometimes managed to influence people by insisting on some right ideas persistently. But in this particular case it doesn't worth it. Simply work on what the product offers you, and convert to what you need for output. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 03:44 UTC''

:::: As to whether or not I want to play with other keyboards, the answer is yes. That said, money is still an issue, and I'm not exactly willing to borrow money to pay for stuff if I can help it. If I need to pay for stuff, I'd rather have the funds to pay for it myself. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

::::: Very good. First of all, "paying" for anything is totally unrelated to all my activity on this topic now and in foreseeable future. Not only my platform is open-source and based on permissive licenses, but all my help I provide now is based on mutual interests, promotion of collaboration, and so on. Just ask if you have any questions, or I'll present to you my last results when I come to next suitable point. But you don't have to wait for this moment... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Sunday 2020 December 6, 20:08 UTC''

:::::: Ah. That makes sense. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

== Microtonal Playground (Part 1) ==

Okay, the application already works, and I already filled in your paradiatonic scales for the demo.

I will publish it as an experimental product under development really soon, then I plan the completion and fully-fledged publication.

So, here is some questions. First, I happen to know your real name (given + family name), so asking just in case: can I mention it publicly in some document (credits/contributors, help, demo file, article)? Of course, you will know the precise context where it can be mentioned.

Can you take the labor of playing with it and some testing? First of all, it would be good if you check up your own scales, both sound and labels on the keys.

Everything works, I only want a bit more testing and fixes, and expose a bunch of small common things which are already there for other applications: controls of volume, sustain, transposition (unfortunately, only by octave in this case, as there is no a well-defined tone or microtone, as this is not necessarily a EDO — any better idea?), and also the presentation of metadata and help. And then, there must be a recorder. We will be able to play exact same things by sending around a record and a tonal system data file. If you want it now, I'll send you a link, but my plan is to prepare a bit more and put a link on my main xen.wiki page as "Experimental"...

What do you think?

: You do indeed have permission to mention me by name- though we must work out the exact context for these mentionings, as there may be other info that needs to be either suppressed for privacy concerns or included for clarification. As for the testing, I need a link. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:: Please take a look: [[User:SAKryukov#Experimental:_Microtonal_Playground|Experimental: Microtonal Playground]] on my [[User:SAKryukov|main page]]. This section provides some minimal introduction, and the application comes with incomplete but quite sufficient Help.html.

:: Note the link under your name, and the "scale" link before. It it fine? There is no any references to you in the application, but my plan is: enter the name/links in the "user.data" metadata properties, provide viewer for current tonal system metadata, add "Credits" sections to the help. Makes sense? Please, if I make any inappropriate or incorrect reference to your material, let me know as soon as possible. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 20:31 UTC''

::: I actually like most of what I'm seeing in the microtonal playground. The only thing I presently don't like is the current layout of the bottom scale, as 3/2 doesn't appear in that scale where as 4/3 does. Other than that, it is a very interesting thing to play around with, especially since you can create other scales through pressing keys in a diagonal fashion. So far, the information you have presented on your page is accurate. When the page you linked is updated, then we'll discuss how to modify your links, and for that, we need Xenwolf's help, as I forget how to link older versions of pages. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::: Well, thank you. Now, which bottom line? The real bottom row is "Demo", its only purpose to show how to a insert fixed-frequency key, a key with a custom label, a disabled key, and <code>repeat</code>. Don't you say that ''your'' "bottom row" named "Locrian" (actually, second last) is wrong? Sorry that I only roughly tested your scales, done them very quickly. (Did you noticed the ''titles'' on the keys which read "Ionian", "Dorian", ..., "Locrian", "Demo"?) I meant that the rows show have the same scale as ''your'' correspondent scales. Did you double-check that they match? And did you look at the file "user.data" which you could edit (in the same directory)? There is a short explanation on [[User:SAKryukov#Experimental:_Microtonal_Playground|my main page]]. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:28 UTC''

::::: I'm talking about the second-to-bottom row, the lowest row with nothing but notes. Sorry for forgetting about all the technical buttons on the bottom. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::: Yes, thank you! It's Locrian. Fixed. Please re-load the page (usually Ctrl+R) and see. It is the only 5th degree with 4/3 instead of 2/3, right? The usual paste bug. Is it all good now? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:38 UTC''

::::::: Almost fixed- the fourth degree of the scale is actually 4/3, while the fifth degree of Locrian is actually 64/45- the buttons are in the wrong order. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::: Ah... few sec... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:45 UTC''

::::::::: Yes, fixed, looks correct, but... push did not reach the auto-published product site on GitHub, they have a mysterious delay, may appear later today or tomorrow. I reported this problem to them, they did not reproduce it. No matter, I can notify you. Also, you can download the entire product (there are all links on my main page); first, it will be up-to-date, secondly, you can try editing the tonal system and try. However, this is a very simple thing, but I would like you to take a look, maybe provide some critique... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:58 UTC''

::::::::: Aha, '''''now''''' the fix is propagated to the site, you can take a look. Thank you for the correction! — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 00:12 UTC''

::::::::: What do you think of my idea of auto-repeated tones? On the example of your scale, you write only the degrees, in your case, 7 of them. Instead of second 1st, you write the special object <code>repeat</code>, for example:

::::::::: <code>[interval(1), interval(9,8), interval(5,4), interval(4,3), interval(3,2), interval(27,16), interval(15,8), repeat],</code> and then the system automatically fills in missing key data to the end of the key row, moving to next octave on each next 1/1...

::::::::: What is <code>interval</code>? Even though for this particular application numbers would suffice, what it returns is not a number! This is a more complicated object; the set of them implements the same very systems of ''regular intervals'', a ''free Abelian group'' used in this part of musical theory. I developed this formalism for wider purposes, such as generator systems and other group theory approaches. This object is semantically similar to Monzo, it is maintained in the factorized form, the group operations are done on the maps of prime factors, and so on, complete operation set. Are you familiar with all that? I would assume you are, and a lot of material on this site assumes the readers can work with such notions. Right? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 00:27 UTC''

:::::::::: I have to admit I don't really know how to program all that well, and I'm only partially familiar with some of the terminology on here- some of the other microtonal music theory is not an area I've gotten to yet as I've only been on this wiki since the end of August myself. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::: Surely, you don't need to know how to ''program'' it, if you are not into it already, but the mathematical aspects, this group theory things are important for your activity, as many aspects are based on it. Right now, I'm into it very much, can clarify many things. This matter is easy to learn, provided the source of knowledge is reasonably good. By the way, I noticed a lot of really bad mistakes in Mike Battaglia's lectures (plain false statements or simply confusions), commented on them, did not get any reply from the author, only [[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] expressed agreement with me. Unfortunately, this entire material has to be replaced. It is referenced from the site's main page and is bad for the site's reputation. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 01:47 UTC''

:::::::::::: @SA: If you'd take the time to write a introduction about group theory in respect to music, at least ''I'' would highly appreciate this. Thanks....and sorry for disturbing --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Wait, did you mean "Monzo" or "Gonzo"? I don't know about "Gonzo" but I do know about "Monzo", and yes, I do work with that bit of math by means of my decade-old graphing calculator. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::: [[Monzo|Monzo]]! Thank you. This is my "favorite" kind of typo, you know. Fixed above.

:::::::::::::: That makes more sense. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Unfortunately, you cannot do any kind of mathematics on a calculator :-). Okay, about those typos, some funny story. I always get into some funny situations. For my very first international conference, I've sent a paper named "Shall we Replace...?" And I made a typo in the very title. It was "Shell we...?". People praised me for the quality of the article text itself, and they fixed the typo in the Proceedings... years after the conference. Someone explained to me, that the editors thought that my title was made with the intent to make some funny wordplay. Probably, someone imagined that by saying "Shell we Replace...?" I implied some kind of software "shell" I proposed to replace with my technology.

::::::::::::: Also, for years I thought that "weather" and "whether" is the same word, one word, and thought it was perfectly reasonable. I thought that the weather is so uncertain that nobody can know whether it can be good or not tomorrow, hence the same word in the language. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 03:07 UTC''

:::::::::::::: For the record, my calculator is a TI-89 Titanium, so it's not just your common desktop calculator. I agree that there's some calculators that your really can't do good math on, but this one you actually can- at least you can get the Monzos of rational intervals with the "factor" function. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: I did not mean that, about the calculator. Ah, you probably call calculations "math". This calculator still works with numbers, right? But, in a way, mathematics is something opposite to the numbers, even though there is a big theory of numbers in mathematics, and a lot more. Sometimes I say that going in for mathematics is one of the ways to avoid doing any calculations whatsoever. :-) Software and computing science too, by the way... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 03:22 UTC'' 03:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: So "mathematics" isn't the same as "number crunching". Interesting idea, but I suppose there's merit to that idea after all- especially if it turns out that the formula for deductive logic can be stated as something like A + AN → C with "A" being the additional argument, "AN" being the sum of any and all additional arguments, and "C" being the conclusion (an idea I've had floating around for a while now). --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: Well, it's not just this. I meant that in practice if you do some mathematics, on a personal level you can distance yourself from any kinds of practical calculations. One of the driving forces is the elimination of all kinds of repetitive work and too concrete notions. Even the merit of mathematics is not just the calculation, even though the absolutely concrete solutions of practical problems is the major part of it. First of all, it gives a common language to the sciences. This way, it helps to unite the sciences. Remember, I mentioned "real" theoretical mechanics, as opposed to what engineers usually learn? Here, the popular physical paradigm "same equations => same solutions" works. Say, in Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formalism the objects are not necessarily mechanical objects. Simply put, you can assemble a thingy made of weights, springs, solenoids, resistors and capacitors and analyze it with a single common system of equations, which is totally agnostic to which part of it is "mechanical" and which one is "electrical". And this is exactly the same notion of "theoretical mechanics" relevant to the theory of music. You don't need to classify vibrations into mechanical, acoustical, electrical, or, say, hydrodynamical — they all can be composed in a single instrument, working together and not separated theoretically. I noticed some usual fallacy in some musical theorist I knew: they often consider the human ear as something separate from the musical instruments, a pure receptor device. But the correct approach is to consider the ear as the same kind of system as any musical instrument — working together. Well, I also know people who do understand that. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:08 UTC''

::::::::::::::::: Excuse me, I still don't know: do you confirm that after my last fix your 7 scales are put correctly in the Microtonal Playground? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:18 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::: Yes. The 64/45 interval is a diminished fifth, and Locrian actually does have this kind of fifth. A 64/45 diminished fifth doesn't operate in the exact same way as a 3/2 perfect fifth when it comes to music- even though there are operational similarities- and this is one reason why many musicians don't seem to know how to handle Locrian mode. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 05:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: So, all seems to be right? — thank you! I knew that Locrian was considered tricky. :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:29 UTC''

::::::::::::::::: And may I ask you to avoid separating my paragraphs separated by the indent into separate fragments by your newer comments? I'm trying to support this: if I use two indented paragraphs without separating them by an empty line, I mean to keep them together, so your added comment can come after them, but not in between. Two funny stories about my typos became separated due to this problem, I just moved them back together. Ok? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:34 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::: Right then. Some paragraphs seem to be suitable for splitting apart from one another, while others are not. It doesn't help that not every user has the same style in regards to this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: Thank you for understanding. "Not the same style" could be a problem, but the priority should be given to the author of the original post, as this person knows the original intent better than the author of a secondary comment; I hope you'll agree. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 06:53 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::: I do agree when it comes to the original content rule. However, we should perhaps talk to Xenwolf about how to more reliably distinguish the two types of multiparagraph posts. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: Ah, when we both post in parallel on the same page, I noticed that my comment sometimes get lost. Maybe I'm just not careful enough... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:34 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::: We both make that same mistake to be honest, and I do think Xenwolf will have to teach you the exact procedure for what to do when your text is what gets deleted due to an edit conflict. I may have basically summarized the general essence of that procedure on his page, and it may be true that whether it's my comment that gets lost or your comment that gets lost is kind of up to timing, but truth be told, I imagine that there are other details and nuances that he's better able to fill in- because he's an admin. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm not sure. If you think we both done some mistakes, can you explain how to avoid it? Maybe your first comment on the topic was correct: this is the simple behavior of the system: earlier post knocks out the uncommitted post when another user is still in an editing state? This is not good enough, but is simple and kind of natural. :-)

::::::::::::::::::: The systems I worked with were on top of the revision control, where the resolutions are fundamental. By the way, do you use any revision control in your work? Believe me, this is heaven. When I started to use them in all cases, all my life went much easier. Even if I have the smallest project, even if the entire project is a pretty short post or a document in a single text file, I create a local revision control repository and work on it. All steps are reversible, you cannot possibly lose anything, you can find traces of your earlier efforts in no time, and so on... It takes absolute minimum of resources, installs and configures in a minute, just brilliant help from a tiny piece of software. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 07:06 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::: Yes, the earlier post does in fact seem to knock out the uncommitted post while the other person is still editing, so there's that. If revision control involves a program I don't have I might not be able to use it- then again, revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles, and you and I both seem to be spectacularly prone to typos, even though you use revision control all the time. Revision control on my end is more likely when I'm attempting to edit another type of document. That said, I do think Xenwolf should walk you through the procedure of preventing the complete loss of those uncommitted posts for good measure, and I asked him about it. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::: Okay, probably we understand how such posts conflict. Now, "revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles"? No, I think you are not right. 1) In the present situation, there is no difference between articles and talks, so revision control would be equally useful. 2) In better situation, say, on GitHub where wiki is fundamentally integrated, the talk looks "more talkative", much closer to the chat software, which is much more usable: people are not working at the same document. Instead, each post goes in a separate section, everything is automatic, you don't have to do these very annoying indents, and yet it's quite apparent which comment you are commenting. And when people work at the same document, this is just a work at a file, no matter if this is a wiki or any other file, same revision-controlled behavior. Also, there are no special "Talk" pages, which is also very good. Instead, a discussion can be opened on every event, first of all, a commit pushed to the central repository. A commit, release, tag, some action, but not a file. This is very logical: what we discuss? Not a file itself, but rather a decision: adding a bunch of tiles, changing them, a request, and so on. It absolutely cannot prevent any free discussions. Say, you request some approval from members for the decision affecting others? Okay, we discuss it first, then decide together. It is not related to actual permissions, we can use different permission policies, from a very free one to a very strict. Mediawiki is great, simple but just overly generalized, maybe oversimplified: the concept of Talk is no different from an article, so we don't have chat-specific features, so this is not so convenient in first place. Maybe you simply need to look at such systems where wiki is integrated with revision control, then you would have a better feel of it. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 08:03 UTC''

::::::::::::::::::::: And, as you often say, for a record: I do not use any revision control for my talks on this site (more exactly, I do have some repository, but this is more of a TODO collection). If revision control is not well integrated, the trade-off between efforts and the usefulness is not so good. With real articles, the story is totally different: I developed a pretty big publishing system, worked as a contributor for the Microsoft Visual Studio Code (in contrast to bulky Visual Studio, brilliant editor and IDE: open-source, multi-platform, very light weight). I easily adopt any article project to any reasonable requirements, always work on revision control, and almost never use any online editors. But then this approach helps me to push an article to the publication pretty much in a single shot. For a talk with its small posts, it would be way to much bothering... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 08:36 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::: It sounds like we actually have a somewhat similar stance regarding revision control for talks on this site- the only thing is that talk pages on this Wiki are those pages that are specifically designated for host such talks, where as other pages (especially the ones I'm referring to as actual articles) are not. There may not be any difference from a technical standpoint, but I'm more concerned about the designated function of the page when it comes to this. On my end, I have to admit I don't have even a proper repository in most cases, so that's on me. Also, I don't exactly keep track of Mediawiki's technical aspects as I'm not an admin. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::: On another note, the statement I use is "for the record", not "for a record". I've done enough studies on Russian (informal studies of course) to know that the function of words like "a" and "the" in English is accounted for in Russian by the definite and indefinite forms on verbs, with "the" corresponding to the marker on Russian's definite forms while "a" and "an" correspond to the marker on Russian's indefinite forms whenever they actually appear. Yes there's functional differences between words like "a", "an" and "the" and the markers on Russian's definite and indefinite forms- namely that in some cases, such as with Proper nouns, the word "the" isn't always needed, while "a" and "an" are only use for single objects- other functional aspects are quite similar. Just thought you might want to know. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::: Ha! Thank you for the note. What you say is perfectly true. You know, I sometimes participate in discussions over one great Russian Youtube channel devoted to English, have some involvement in linguistics, and understand such issues related to different patterns and lines of thinking in different cultures. You probably know that Russian is very complicated, highly synthetic-inflectional, and lacks articles, but article functions do exist in some strange ways. We discussed a lot of interesting and often very funny things. I'm not sure you correctly understand the expression of "article functions" in Russian. First of all, I don't know what is "indefinite form of nouns", I only understand "indefinite verb", and I think the notion "indefinite" is not even used in Russian. Article function is more typically expressed with an adjective. However, nouns also can play some role. I'll give you only some funny examples. For example, in modern jargon, people often use the moderately rude word "pepper" (or "horseradish", with the jargon use of complicated euphemism origin) meaning simply "male person". In certain contexts, one of this jargon meanings is "a man" as opposed to "the man", that is, some man, no matter who, or unknown one. There are many similar cases. Now, one funny adjective example. One day, my friend and former roommate make my guest laugh by saying in the discussion on some legal matter: "Suppose, you have some abstract wife...". I knew him better, so for me, his manner of expression was natural. Indeed, in some "cultured" communities the adjective "abstract" is used to carry just the function of the indefinite article. :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 19:04 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::: Sorry, I forgot that Russian does the definite-indefinite distinction with verbs rather than nouns, but funny enough, some languages- if I recall correctly- express the definite-indefinite function on nouns rather than verbs. My mistake. Fixed in my above comment. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::: Please, no need to apologize, and thank you! This is just a very interesting topic. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 19:56 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::: I must also point out that for one of my other projects, I'm actually trying to create a language that is descended from English in the same way that Spanish, Italian and French are all descended from Latin. This language is weird in some ways because the parts that decline verbs in this language of mine are prefixes rather than suffixes- oh, and there's a realist future tense for things that are bound to happen as opposed to irrealis future tenses that have distinct deontic, conditional, or epistemic modality. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh! It sounds so interesting! You know, it was my guess based on some of your comments, that you also take special interest in linguistics. Any more information? Links? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 19:54 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: The majority of the fruits of my labors in this particular arena are not to be found online, and that is for a reason- they are connected to what should eventually be a serialized novel roughly the size of "War and Peace" that I have yet to finish. That said, we can exchange emails about some of the present details of this language- especially since talking in depth about this matter is not a topic that is suitable for this Wiki. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "War and Piece" size? Great, please don't forget to include your chapters on historical philosophy. :-)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Now, about e-mail exchange — this is the right idea. I don't mind at all. Let's do the following: really, let's set aside all further discussions here (except musical/mathematical/software topics potentially interesting to the Xenharmonic readers) and move them in private. More exactly: to start, will you look at [[User:SAKryukov#Profile_and_Contacts|my contact section on my main page]]. I reference two means of indirect mailing: via my site or xen.wiki). You can try both and decide what is more convenient for you. Then we'll have a further choice: to continue in any of these ways, or go further away from any of these sites, which would be even simpler. To do so, you may choose to share some real e-mail address, and then we will have more choices. First, I can send my real e-mail in response. I will ask you to keep it secret and address other people to my [[User:SAKryukov#Profile_and_Contacts|xen.wiki page]]. Also, I can invite you for a chat, which is more convenient than e-mail, but it would be better to use both chat and e-mail, depending on the purpose. Finally, I have a choice of chats I actively use: 1) I can create a channel on my Slack site, it is more convenient and mostly used for my discussions with musicians, 2) Skype, which is much less convenient, 3) I have some settings for an ad-hoc chat. Now, all chat channels I have are non-commercial, but they allow voice and video over IP (but only one facility has screen sharing). I have the applications, but on your side, you don't have to install anything, pure Web browser would suffice. I don't really like using video, but would not mind talking in voice. I really prefer char for small talks. Also, we can only try different channels and then decide. So, what do you think? Will you do it? If you will, the next step is yours. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 20:53 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Truth be told, there are a lot of elements concerning the historical philosophy that I'm keeping secret at this time, though perhaps we can talk about some of them during our discussion. I did go to your contact section on your main page, and I decided to send an email via xen.wiki, and chances are we will likely continue our conversations among personal email exchanges. I do intend to keep things secret as much as possible, but given the nature of technology, and the fact that I'm only now starting to get help on the actual novel from other people, some elements of our conversation may end up on Discord, though we will have to discuss which things we can allow to make their way to Discord and which things we need to keep under wraps. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: For the record, I have no intention of sharing your real email with other people, so no need to worry about that. It's other things that I'm concerned about keeping secret on my end. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do understand it, no worries at all; I mentioned it just for keeping things proper. So, will you write to me? If you share your real e-mail in any of your communications, I'll surely keep it secret, naturally. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 21:16 UTC''

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Frankly, as you could have noticed, I mentioned historical philosophy only to make a humorous reference to L. Tolstoy. (At school, many children make fun of Tolstoy, because these chapters are enormously big, so many consider them as inappropriate, but I've read them very carefully even at that time.) At the same time, somehow I'm not too surprised that you have something real on this topic. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 21:23 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I attempted to write to you by means of xen.wiki soon after I mentioned us emailing one another. However, I'm now wondering if that email went through. You may need to check your email's files for junk, as the email I sent could have ended up there for some weird reason. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Not to worry, your message arrived just as expected, thank you. Now, do you want to go further and share your e-mail, or I can send a message in the same way first, share my e-mail, so we can communicate independently from this site, more conveniently? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 21:50 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Finally! I was wondering when it would. I think it would be better for you to respond to my message. Given my experience exchanging emails with Xenwolf, I think it best that you actually respond to the message I sent. Hopefully from there, I can respond and give you my actual email. If not, we'll try another means of exchanging emails. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Done. Please give me the confirmation here, just for this first time. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 22:25 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I got your message, and I've sent a reply. We should be good from there. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, everything looks fine. Thank you. You got my reply; no need to send confirmations anymore.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I got a pleasant surprise: I tried to explain the pretty nasty Wiki styling bug with external links (at least for Vector I use), and Xenwolf kept saying that everything is fine, there was nothing to fix. But recently I found that the bug is fixed by someone. It feels nice! — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 23:46 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do however think I should mention that "Folly of a Drunk" sprang out of an early draft of one particular scene in my serialized novel, as do a number of my non-microtonal songs. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, interesting. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 20:27 UTC''

::::::::: Also, only today I faced the problem with sound degraded with time, don't know how to reproduce; this problem was never exposed with the rest of the applications based on the same synthesis engine. That problem may take time... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 00:01 UTC''

:::::::::: I've noticed it too honestly. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::: Thank you for telling me. Okay, it's better to have the problem exposed than having wanna-be fine operation with a time bomb inside. This is troublesome, but I should fix it. For the pre-production, it is acceptable to expose the problem to the public. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 01:38 UTC''

::: I should also mention that the current link to my user page may eventually need to be changed to link to another page on this wiki- namely a page with my real name detailing what I'm known for in the future. However, that day has not come yet- this is just something we may need to keep on the radar for the future. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::: I remember that. But this is the ideology of Wiki: as everyone can edit everything, if you change your URL and know someone references it, you can go to this person's page and fix it. I would invite you to do so when you change your URL. If you don't want to change it by yourself, just notify me. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:28 UTC''

: If you link to or cite my pages here on this wiki, we also need to take stock of the fact that the content of these pages is liable to change in the future. Sorry I didn't say this right the first time. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

=== ~~Signing and timestamps~~ ===

=== 4.9.5 ===

~~Hello SAKryukov~~, ~~ ~~

V. 4.9.5: Added mechanism of customization of user's tonal system in a separate file, refined user's error reporting.

~~If you put <code><nowiki>— [~~[~~User:SAKryukov|SA]] ([[User talk~~:SAKryukov~~|talk]]),<~~/~~nowiki></code> into the input line in the section Signature on [[Special:Preferences#mw~~-~~prefsection~~-~~personal|your preferences]] and check the checkbox ''Treat signature as wikitext (without an automatic link)'' you configured the wiki software to replace four tildes <code><nowiki>~~~~<~~/~~nowiki><~~/~~code> by it '''and''' the timestamp. (read about the special function of tildes in [[mw: Help:Signatures]])~~ --~~—[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf~~]~~] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 07:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)~~

The customization is shown on the sample [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/tree/master/docs/playground/custom-demo playground/custom-demo].

~~: Your information~~ is ~~very useful — thank you very much. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], 07:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)~~

This is how customization works:

~~: There is one problem though: I want to get different signatures for different contexts — any ideas? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], 07~~:~~56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)~~

~~:: I think this could be possibly done by~~ user ~~scripts (~~a ~~skin-independent solution should be placed into~~ [~~[User~~:SAKryukov/~~common~~.js]~~]). But currently I cannot say exactly how~~.

The user creates a new copy of the file [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/blob/master/docs/playground/user.data user.data] in some separate location. The application can start with this file if it is specified in the Web browser ''address line'' as a query parameter, for example:

~~::: Well, I can tell you how~~. ~~Yes, it's doable, but no fun and can be a good waste of time instead of gain~~. ~~First, JavaScript executes code accessed through a Preferences text element, and it is executed on the server~~-~~side, I can see it by the JavaScript engine behavior — it is impossibly ancient~~. ~~Not only this is boring, but also the server-side execution is questionable: what if some~~ user ~~mess up things badly? hope there is some reasonable protection~~.~~.. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 04:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)~~

<code>...playground/index.html?custom-demo/customized.user.data</code>

~~:: BTW: Since I have seen somewhere that you call yourself a perfectionist, I think you~~ should ~~take a closer look at the idea(s) behind the Wiki medium~~. ~~It is not a book, it is not a forum and it is not a mixture of both~~. ~~Without the claim to completeness, I would summarize my experiences like this today: The focus is on joint constructive work with the emphasis on content~~. ~~(I think a good resource is a series of interviews with Wiki inventor Ward Cunningham on artima, I link the 5th and the last part here, because the TOC of the whole collection is only here available~~.~~) --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)~~

The path should be relative to “...playground/index.html”.

~~::: Sorry~~, ~~I forgot~~ the ~~link, here it is:~~ [https://~~www.artima~~.com/~~intv~~/~~simplest.html The Simplest Thing that Could Possibly Work]~~ --~~[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf~~]~~] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:14~~, ~~26 November 2020 (UTC)~~

For simplification, this address line could be placed in another custom file, an HTML file, such as the demo file “index.html” in [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/tree/master/docs/playground/custom-demo playground/custom-demo]. In this case, the application can be started with the custom tonal system data in one click.

::~~:: Got it~~, ~~thank you — ~~[~~[User~~:SAKryukov~~|SA~~]~~] 15:27~~, ~~26 November 2020 (UTC~~)

Customization cannot work in [https://SAKryukov.GitHub.io/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/playground live demo]. Instead, the entire project should be [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard downloaded]. See the green button entitled “Code”. In the downloaded code, we only need its sub-directory “docs”, everything else can be deleted. (The weird directory name “docs” is related to the GitHub naming requirements for the content served by a product's Web site used for [https://SAKryukov.GitHub.io/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/playground live demo]. In fact, all the production code is in this directory).

~~On [[User talk:SAKryukov/common.css]], I added a note about self links, did you read it? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)~~

== Keyboards based on the designs by Kite Giedraitis ==

: ~~Not yet, reading now, thank you for the note... Aha, well, I know all that, thank you. However, I would~~ be ~~grateful if you could point out the element or the class bearing the padding between the sidebar and its content — I'm lost in this nesting structure and poor signal-~~to~~-noise ratio of the code. If it's too boring, please never mind. My style does exactly what I want: 1) indicates the difference between un-logged and logged views, 2) gives me~~ a ~~pleasant look, 3) doesn't mangle anything. :-) — ~~[[User:SAKryukov|SA]] ~~08:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)~~

[[User talk:TallKite#Your tonal system on my microtonal platform|The discussion on this topic]] shall be moved to a separate [[User talk:SAKryukov/Keyboards based on the designs by Kite Giedraitis|sub-page]]

==~~= Javascript =~~==

== Reduce comma tables on EDO pages ==

Per-user [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=User%3ASAKryukov&type=revision&diff=53202&oldid=53201 scripts] should be enabled in the wiki, but these are not restricted to pages but take effect on every page. Please ~~read the details in~~ [[mw: ~~Manual:Interface/JavaScript~~ #~~Personal scripts~~]]. ~~(I'm not totally sure about it right now because we had a wiki upgrade from 1.31 to 1.35 in the last days.)~~ --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 08:53, ~~25 November 2020~~ (UTC)

Please have a look at [[Xenharmonic Wiki: Things to do #Comma tables in EDO_pages]]. Thanks --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

: Looking... — thank you. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2021 January 12, 21:23 UTC''

~~Thank you! It was just my test.~~

== Microtonal Playground (Part 2) ==

~~: That's what I thought 🙂. As I found out~~, user scripts are enabled. See [[User:Xenwolf/vector.js]] for a small example. I'm not sure if <code>let</code> is supported now (there was/is an issue) but <code>const</code> definitively is. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:34, ~~25 November 2020 (UTC) PS: signing - even on ''your'' user talk - would make things easier. And if you don't like~~ the ~~double hyphen, you may use <code>&mdash;</code> or <code>—</code> as well~~, the ~~magic starts only~~ in the ~~tildes. It's also possible~~ to ~~heavily customize you signature~~. ~~ See [[mw: Help:Signatures #Customized signatures]] for a detailed description~~. ~~ ~~ --[[User:~~Xenwolf~~|~~Xenwolf~~]] ([[User talk:~~Xenwolf~~|talk]]) 09:34, ~~25 November 2020~~ (UTC)~~~~

Hey, SA, it seems that the Microtonal playground has one problem, at least in the 12-edo version. The "B" in the Mixolydian row should be renamed "B-Flat" to match the other instances of that same note in other rows. Sorry about this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:: Thank you ~~again! I~~'~~ve figured out and done it all~~. ~~[[User talk:Xenwolf|On your talk page]], I created two questions under "Quick Question", and now one left, rather a very annoying CSS bug~~. ~~Anything?~~ [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], 01:~~43, 26 November 2020 (~~UTC)

: Thank you, that's correct. Fixed. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Saturday 2021 February 20, 17:05 UTC''

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+== Wiki ==
+Wiki discussion moved to [[User talk:SAKryukov/Wiki]] &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;November&nbsp;30,&nbsp;01:54&nbsp;UTC''
 == Introductions ==
@@ Line 6: / Line 8: @@
 : I'm not sure I'm answering in a technically correct way, please help me if I don't. To answer your question: will you take a look at my articles referenced on [[User:SAKryukov|my page]]? For example, I can explain how tonal systems work and what part of musical perception is poorly natural, and what part is cultural. I invented some microtonal musical instruments with some exceptional properties. You can try to play them right on your browser, and, if you have a touchscreen, with ten fingers...
 : I'll first take a look at your Wiki page gladly answer if you have any questions...
+lp if you followed the l (??? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]])
 :: Hm...  I can't seem to find the articles anymore... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 263: / Line 265: @@
 ::::: Sorry, I did not understand the answer, could you clarify? And what is "latter article"?No matter, I don't mind the use of "just intonation", only afraid of the situations when a reader understands it in some more concrete sense. I don't insist that my terms are better to coin them.
+:::::: It would help if you followed the links in my last comment- I was telling you to follow the links to help you get a sense of what I meant, as the articles explained this better than I can.  The term "latter" means the second of two, so the phrase "latter article" means "the second of two articles". --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+::::::: Please don't get irritated by this, but now I cannot find 1) what are those two articles, 2) what is "my last comment" :-) Here is what I want to advise: I think you greatly overestimate the ability of other people to navigate (I say only "navigate", not "understand", generally I understand you quite well). You overestimate just the vision, observation of what you said before, ability to associate it, and so on. For communication on such things, there is a great tool: links! The same goes about discussions with the numbers: most people don't imagine them well. (I personally have one of the kinds of the mathematical mind. People like me think abstractly but notoriously bad with numbers. Paradoxically, mathematics and dealing with concrete numbers are almost opposite traits :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 18:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::: I'm not irritated by this, rather, I can't help but laugh...  Anyhow here are the links to the definitions of the terms you wanted to know about:
+:::::::: [[tempering out]]
+:::::::: [[fudging]]
+:::::::: Hope this helps. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::: Perhaps now this is my turn to laugh. I do know exactly these two links, but the issue was the association between those too links and your words referencing those, so your answer is not redundant information, it is used to restore the association. I actually asked about two associations: "1) what are those two articles, 2) what is "my last comment", but now it is not important, everything is already clear enough &mdash; thank you. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 18:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 :::::Lastly, I was thinking about those commas and have some consideration. Roughly, we need to understand that in a rational-number interval i=A/B makes deep physical sense only if A and B are small enough. This is related to the nature of aural perception of any organisms or even devices. If the numbers became 3-digit numbers or more, the accuracy of the rational number doesn't play its role. Let's see: there are two physical traits: 1) the sense of harmonics in the interval with small A and B; it is based that two oscillators in the ear come in resonance, but not necessarily on their fundamental frequencies, but some low-order harmonics, if harmonics are high, the effect is unnoticeable, 2) the perception of logarithmic distances between frequencies as equal. Now, #1 and #2 are in fundamental contradiction: 1) if all intervals are rational numbers, their system is never ever equidistant, so the equivalence of tonalities is impossible, 2) if intervals are equidistant, the ratio values are never rational, so we won't feel the perfect sense of harmony. So, the question is: with this trade-off, where is the reasonable choice? The common-practice system has chosen the compromise and gave more preference to #2 than before. 12-EDO gives amazingly good compromise, but we pretty easily can perceive the deviation from harmony. At the same time, our trait #1 is more accurate than #2. What is my conclusion? It can be a bit complicated in practice, but this is nothing but some intermediate idea. First, everything depends on the composition. Where we value the sense of equidistant notes? I don't think it is absolutely important in most cases. That said, when your calculations lead you to big natural numbers, A/B, you can easily give up having a rational number for a certain degree and use a mixture of rational numbers and real numbers. I do understand how weird it can be, this is just a vague idea. Another vague idea is that you might extend some tonal system but then classify the resulting tones and their functional roles into two classes: "degrees" and "non-degrees". A "non-degree" tone can have a limited role, it cannot be, for example, used as a root of a chord, and so on. I do understand that this is very weird and not elegant, this is just for discussion. The main point is: the contradictions and trade-offs in the tonal systems are unavoidable in principle, by the very nature of thins, sorry for possible truism. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
-== Wiki ==
+:::::: Given the trade off, I'd say that the reasonable choice is to try and approximate the rational values- especially 1-digit and 2-digit values- within a value of less than 3.5 cents wherever possible, as this is the kind of size difference where people won't really notice the deviation from harmony.  As it happens, 159edo and a number of other EDOs in that area do a pretty good job with this from what I see.  Yes, there are flaws, such as 159edo's inconsistent treatment of the 19 prime, but since 159edo represents the primes 5, 7 and 13 reasonably well, with the primes 3, 11, and 17 being represented by intervals that are less than a cent away from harmony, and since the primes 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17 are the primes that have the most to really offer, I think we have the most important facets covered where it counts the most.  I should point out that the reason I value the sense of equidistant notes is that it enables a sense of uniformity and provides some measure of simplicity, but using a set of equidistant notes that is too small causes problems and doesn't respect the unequal distances between 1-digit and 2-digit values within good enough reason.  I definitely try to extend the tonal system but then classify the resulting tones and their functional roles into two classes: "main tones" (akin to your idea of "degrees") and "variant tones" (akin to your idea of "non-degrees"). As far as I'm concerned, "variant tones" mainly act as chord roots during modulation- that is, when you're in the middle of trying to change keys- and don't do anything like that under most other circumstances, so yes "variant tones" do indeed have a more limited role compared to "main tones".  Does all of this make sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+::::::: I understand. Oh, and it is great that you open to the pretty weird idea (because it can complicate things too much) of "non-degrees" under the name of "variant tones" (probably, clearer name). Yes, so far I think it all makes sense, but right now this is shooting off the heap (is that a correct idiom?). &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 18:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::: The phrase "shooting from the hip" is an actual idiom, but I don't know if you mean to say I'm "speaking or acting rashly, recklessly, or bluntly, without consideration of potential consequences" (which is what the idiom means) or not.  I was trying to say that large EDOs like 159edo are one way of approaching a solution to the dilemma you're talking about, and I was trying to tell you why it might as a solution if done right.  --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::: I haven't responded to a number of your posts, took a little time to start cleaning up on that matter. No, I did not have any doubt on the ''meaning'' of this idiom, which is international, I worried a bit only about the accuracy of its English form. By the way, I do not quite agree with your description of its semantics. However, the semantics of the idiom is the usual source of arguments. From practice and simple logic, I can see that  "shooting from the hip" only means fast (intuitive) action, taken for a reason and, on the contrary to what you say, more typically, consciously, with pretty good "consideration of potential consequences". Why? Because by the very fact using of this idiom, the speaker clearly conducts the idea that the judgment was based on taking a risk. Which is exactly what I meant. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;November&nbsp;30,&nbsp;23:54&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::: Ah.  While I see what you meant, it seems all the sources I have on the semantics of the phrase "shooting from the hip" do indicate that this idiom implies recklessness.  I guess I don't know what the corresponding idiom for what you're talking about is in English. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::: No, this is not a "corresponding" idiom, this is an international idiom, in all cultures using it the phrase is a simple near-literal calc, no matter where the original is. And it "depends" on how to thread the term "reckless". If you address to the prototype, the kind of battle technique of this kind of shooting, sometimes called "Macedonian shooting" (I don't know why) imply that people decide to fight using this technique based on their training and pretty consciously, otherwise all those special-purpose squads would be easily exterminated by the enemies. :-) . As I say, the very fact of using this idiom is a kind of excuse that the speaker takes the changes. I a person makes this note, the saying itself is consciously. Maybe one can think this is compatible with the idea of being "reckless", not so sure... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;00:34&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::: From what I see, the English phrase literally means "To discharge a firearm while it is held near the hip, without taking time to aim via the gunsights".  The "reckless" thread comes from the lack of aim. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: Well, you described the origin of the idiom very accurately. And that renders both "lack of the aim" or "without consideration" quite illogical, as the main goal of the technique is to have the aim destroy the target, same goes for the user of the idiom (not destruction, of course, just the goal of the action). &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;01:18&nbsp;UTC''
+== 24edo Harmony ==
+Hey SA, do you think we have the chance to talk about the harmonic possibilities of 24edo in regards to 11/8 and 16/11 now that you have listened to "Folly of a Drunk"?  I mean, judging from the absolute error amounts, I'd say that 24edo approximates 11/8 and 16/11 better than 22edo does... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
+: We can, but I'm going to be somewhat busy, will hardly spend so much time. I'd better need to do some calculations before I'm ready to talk; this is a very fast thing but needs some distraction. First of all, I already admitted that my judgment on this EDO was not based on comprehensive considerations, as I only used the comparisons with "just intonation" in a very narrow sense of this expression, only the well-know system 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8, closely related to the common-practice one. I forgot to notice that my own research aimed to produce some extended sets of intervals renders that judgment obsolete. Based on that criteria, my old method of finding the EDOs produced only 12- 19- 31- 41-... -EDOs and missed some other EDOs. That said, I'm ready to reconsider 22-EDO.
+:: Unfortunately, I must confess that I'm not as experienced with 22edo, so for dealing with 22edo properly, you'll want to talk to others on the Wiki.  However, I myself am writing a song called "Space Tour" in an approximation of 159edo, and it mimics 12edo, 14edo, 17edo, 19edo, 22edo, 24edo, 27edo, 31edo, 35edo and 41edo, and these "retunings" (as I call them) rather closely match the real EDOs.  Sure, you may notice a few notes are slightly different when you compare this song against the actual EDOs, but rest assured, this piece can still give you an approximation of ''some'' of the things these EDOs are capable of, though to be fair, it is a really long song, and after the 41edo-retuning, it goes on to a near-perfect 53edo as well before going on to use the near-perfect 159edo in the same way that the real 159edo is natively structured.  I should also point out that I work with Locrian mode a lot, and this mode only really makes sense when you consider the Tyrant Antitonic's properties relative to the Tonic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
+: As to &ldquo;Folly of a Drunk&rdquo;, it sound absolutely logical to my ear, and nice to hear. The only problem with it is: can you produce and publish some more? :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;November&nbsp;30,&nbsp;01:53&nbsp;UTC''
+:: I can indeed do that, but do prepare for a lot of dealings in 24edo and near-perfect 159edo. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
+::: I know, but it would be very interesting to have and listen to that. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;00:06&nbsp;UTC''
+:::: I'm trying to work on a pretty long song called "Space Tour"- the song I alluded to earlier in which a near-perfect approximation of 159edo is used to mimic other edos.  I have yet to think of how to write the last few sections however. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+:: Speaking of songs in 24edo, have you checked out "Anticipation"?  That song showcases some of the other things that 24edo is capable of, and even outright uses 1edo, 2edo, 3edo, 4edo, 6edo and 8edo- though not in that order- before going to quartertone-enhanced traditional tonality in 24edo itself. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
+::: I think I listened to everything I found in the links on your pages, including "Anticipation". It is interesting, but &ldquo;Folly of a Drunk&rdquo; is something special: Having microtonal structure in а clear melodic motion, plus its aesthetic effect, plus recognizable allusion with the classical presentation of possible "analogous" theme, multiplied by specific kind of humor &mdash; this is a different story. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;00:06&nbsp;UTC''
+:::: Really?  "Folly of a Drunk" is ''that'' special?  I have no idea as to exactly how I managed to pull off the emotional components since I have difficulty processing emotions...  Truth be told, I came up with the catchy melodic line for "Folly of a Drunk" just by messing around... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::: Yes, this is what I think. I can describe it in a different way, but please try not to get offended, or something: your other pieces remind a lot of very usual things: ambient, science fiction, horror soundtracks, something like that, and only &ldquo;Folly of a Drunk&rdquo; hardly cannot be confused with something else, it is distinctly recognizable. At the same time, it follows some very traditional melodic structure, only mangled in some totally logical way. Yes, I understand if it is done by messing around, but maybe only because your intuition did not betray you in this case? My first impression was that you've elaborated a stable technique of interpretation of melodic themes in some "microtonal space". Apparently, your words tell me that it was false impression, but it only makes things more interesting :-) (Of course, taking into account that I know next to nothing about the art of musical composition. :-) After I received your very first comment on this page, first thing I did was listening to this piece. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;01:31&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::: I'm not actually offended by you thinking highly of this song- in fact, I'm actually pleasantly surprised by this.  I have to say that the chord structure of "Folly of a Drunk" required more work- especially trying to make sure that the song changed keys properly around two thirds of the way through- furthermore, I also have to say that the chord structure is a driving element just like the melody is, and, if I recall correctly, I had to write the chords first in a number of cases. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::: For the record: you misread me here. I was afraid of being offensive not because of thinking highly of this piece, but because of feeling not so impressed by all other pieces &mdash; sorry. Indeed, I think that I heard enough of thins giving similar impressions, but only  &ldquo;Folly of a Drunk&rdquo; is so special. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;07:03&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::: Ah.  I realise that a lot of my work is sci-fi, but I hope there's still interesting things about "Space Tour" in particular once that gets done. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::  You know, you can think of it whatever you want, but I find almost all science fiction music totally boring. :-) I was deeply impressed by science fiction music only by Eduard Artemyev, first of all, in Solaris (1972, or course) and Stalker. Did you listen to it? But Artemyev is generally one оf the genius composers, isn't he? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;07:31&nbsp;UTC''
+::::: Besides, the name... I thought that the name of this piece is a kind of allusion to the original name of one Bruegel's painting, "The Folly of the World", and, weirdly, the motive of this piece reminded me of this painting. What? Is it just my fantasy? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;01:40&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::: In all honestly, I don't think I ever heard of the particular painting you referenced.  In truth, this song was written to go along with a very specific scene in mind, though I won't share the totality of that scene at this time.  On another note, I have to admit that "Space Tour" is another science-fiction-based song, though I hope there's at least something interesting about it once I get done. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::: Ha-ha, I guess, this is a good illustration of how art critics work: their fantasies find so far-reaching cultural references, associations, and enormously deep meanings, something that actual authors never thought of. :-)
+::::::: Anyway, it would be good for you to know what is the famous painting your soundtracks comes with. :-) The official name is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlandish_Proverbs Flemish Proverbs (Netherlandish Proverbs)] after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder Pieter Bruegel the Elder]. This piece of art plays a very special role in culture. Just basically, it illustrates approximately 112 identifiable proverbs and idioms and also related to the author's vision of "absurdity, wickedness and foolishness". &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;05:53&nbsp;UTC''
+== Commas ==
+Hey, SA, I think I ended up naming a few commas that I can't find names for on the [http://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/intervals.html Huygens-Fokker Foundation's list of intervals]- these would be the [[quartisma]], the [[nexuma|nexus comma]] and the [[symbiosma|symbiotic comma]], the [[Alpharabian comma]] and the [[Betarabian comma]]...  What do you think of these names? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
+: Sorry, nothing certain. Even though I'm familiar with many well-known comma names, I did not think enough of the the motivation and the correspondence between the nature of each comma and its naming. Besides, to make your considerations comprehensible, you probably need to explain everything in some definitive order: first, the schema of getting to one or another comma, which intervals or chains come to the comma, in what way, then, you need to present some rationale behind the suggested name, relating the nature (its role, significance, historical facts) and the proposed naming. More generally, I can see some specifically musical communication problems. It is not as trivial as the specific terminology not quite understandable by people from the outside word, no, this is some deficit of communication culture, resembling, say, irregularities of classical chemical nomenclature... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;00:24&nbsp;UTC''
+:: I have to admit I don't know what you mean by "schema" here.  That said, I can tell you which intervals or chains come to the comma and in what way.  I can also give some degree of rational behind the suggested name, relating the nature of the comma and the proposed meaning... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::: "Schema" has a very abstract meaning in the general case, and yes, you understood me correctly. Yes, I know you can tell that schema in each case, I only say, that before you do it, everything else is meaningless. I personally love (and often can) to play with words and create names, but I need a really good semantic background. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;01:47&nbsp;UTC''
+:::: In that case, since a worldview is an example of a schema, I guess I do in fact deal in some of them.  However, I must also point out that I have Asperger's Syndrome, and people with Asperger's often struggle with abstractions.  See Dr. Kenneth Roberson's [https://www.kennethrobersonphd.com/people-aspergers-think-part/ two] [https://www.kennethrobersonphd.com/people-aspergers-think-part-ii/ articles] on the subject. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::: Hm... I happened to read about this phenomenon but never faced such people. Anyway, from what I understand about it (and the references you've provided only confirmed my understanding), the "struggle" is not with the abstraction itself (abstraction is a fundamental trait of any cognitive activity), but only with the communication about abstractions, simply put, solving the problem of the choice of one of the possible meaning of the word, more specific vs. more general/abstract. In this particular case, I responded that 1) you recognized my implied meaning of schema correctly, 2) my construct "schema has a very abstract meaning" simply means that it does not have to be understood in any specific way, but only works as a generalization placeholder for the next part of the sentence, 3) its implied meaning is disclosed by the words "which intervals or chains come to the comma", 4) and the abstraction could be reduced the adding to these words "or something like that". I'm not sure if I made it clearer, but if not, this is not so important, because you already grasped the correct meaning anyway. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;05:35&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::: Hm... seeing as that's the case, I can tell you about my reasonings for the name of each of the commas I've mentioned if that's alright with you... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::: It can be interesting but perhaps later. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;07:35&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::: Well, since I already typed out my reasoning, I might as well post it before I forget it or lose it, though do feel free to read about it later if need be...
+:::::::: The Quartisma, 117440512/117406179, is the difference between a stack of five 33/32 quartertones and one 7/6 subminor third, and since 33/32 is a quartertone, while the comma itself is unnoticeable, I came up with the name "quartisma" based on "quartertone" and "schisma".
+:::::::: The Nexus comma, 1771561/1769472, is the difference between a stack of three 128/121 Alpharabian diatonic semitones and a 32/27 minor third.  The 128/121 semitone is an example of pure 11 prime interval, while the 32/27 minor third is an example of pure 3 prime interval, and both the 11 prime and the 3 prime are significant in their own ways.  Specifically, while the 3 prime has its connections to the diatonic scale, and the perfect intervals 3/2 and 4/3, the 11 prime can be mathematically calculated to be the virtually the best prime for representing quartertones in terms of ratio simplicity, with three 33/32 quartertones plus a 4096/3993 quartertone being the simplest known combination of two distinct, rational quartertone intervals that can be added together to make a 9/8 whole tone.  Since tempering out 1771561/1769472 joins the 3 prime chain and the 11 prime chain together, it makes sense to call it the "nexus comma".
+:::::::: The Symbiotic comma is the difference between 77/72 and 2187/2048, and the sum of the quartisma and the nexus comma.  It gets its name both from the fact that it is tempered out in such notable temperaments as vishnu, newt, kwai, supers, guiron and amity, and, from the fact that it also makes a good extension to a number of other temperaments such as canou.
+:::::::: the Alpharabian comma, 131769/131072, is the difference between a stack of two 128/121 diatonic semitones and a 9/8 whole tone.  The comma gets its name from the association between al-Farabi with the 33/32 quartertone- which is part of the 2-3-11-based tuning.  Specifically, it comes through an analogy between the familiar association between Pythagoras and 3-prime-based tuning on one hand, and the aformementioned association between al-Farabi with the 33/32 quartertone on the other.  This analogy is furthered by the fact that 131769/131072 is similar to that of the Pythagorean comma in that it relates diatonic semitones to the 9/8 whole tone.
+:::::::: The Betarabian comma, 264627/262144, is the sum of the schisma and the biyatisma (121/120), as well as the sum of the Alpharabian comma and the rastma (243/242).  The term "Betarabian" is a derivative of "Alpharabian", and was coined on account of both the rastma being the comma which separates primary and secondary 2-3-11-based intervals and the term "Alpharabian" itself containing the word "Alpha" within it- all that was needed was for "Beta" to be put in place of the "Alpha".
+:::::::: I hope this all makes sense now... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::: It's fine to have it here now, but you cannot expect that I digest it right away. :-) The only thing I wanted to ask you in first place: is *arabian related to Arabic culture? I did not expect to face such a crazy word play: it is related not to "Arabic", but to the name of our Kazakhstan location "Farabi", with Arabic form "al" with the meaning close to the preposition "from", which makes the name of a person "from Farab", and the resulting name associated with the letter name "Alpha". After replacement of "Alpha" by "Beta" the name "Farabi" is totally dissolved, due to elimination of "F", forget about "al-". To see the real sophistication of it, we also have to remember that the form "al-" is Arabic, but Arabic analogs of Greek "Alpha" and "Beta" are read differently: "Alif" and "Ba". The wordplay is certainly pretty smart. And what kind of a person is supposed to figure out such puzzles? :-)
+:::::::::: The term "Alpharabian" comes from "Alpharabius"– another name for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Farabi Abu Nasr al-Farabi]– and was chosen due to the fact that 33/32, also known as the the "al-Farabi Quartertone", is the primary limma of the 11-limit, a fact which lends itself to the idea of 2.3.11 tuning being called "Alpharabian tuning" in the same way that 2.3 tuning is called "Pythagorean tuning".  I imagine that the rest of what you've said about the wordplay is quite true, seeing as I didn't know the meaning of the name "al-Farabi" aside from its connection to the aforementioned person.  It is specifically the name "Alpharabius" and the related adjective "Alpharabian" that bear the association with the letter name "Alpha".  I'm sorry, I should have mentioned the remaining specifics, but I was struggling with the specifics as to how to express this complicated etymology. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::: Got it. Thank you for another piece of information that makes the naming issue even more complicated. :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;16:38&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::: I hope the complication doesn't turn you off...  I guess you really were right about musicians naming intervals in the most complicated and convoluted ways.  Oh, and yes, I can think of one example where musicians have actually given a musical interval a perverse name, but I won't go into the specifics of that here. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: Turning off..? Not at all, just the opposite: I enjoy and never miss a chance for a linguistic exercise. :-) As to the interval naming and other names, it depends on your understanding of "perverse name". To my taste, most of those names are perverse, but this is not directly related to linguistic itself, but more to the overly ''ad hoc'' manner of thinking. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;18:14&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::: So, SA, I'm curious... do you like the names I've given the commas?  Or, is it too ad hoc for your taste? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::: Sorry, not ready; and I don't want to give you an absolutely immature opinion.  Rather, I would need some time; and I'm pretty busy. I won't forget, don't worry. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;19:36&nbsp;UTC''
+::: Oh, great! Huygens-Fokker Foundation's list of intervals you referenced in the first paragraph of this section. It can help me to explain to you what is that very characteristic of communication problems I can see in the musicians. In the list, you can see the set of rational-number intervals and some names. Hopefully, all rational numbers in the list are irreducible fractions. What information does this page carry? Next to nothing. The only possible use is this: when you already got some interval from some other source, say, from your own calculation, you can check up: is it one of the well-known intervals or not, and, if it is, what is its well-known name? Even this information has some uncertainty, because, strictly speaking, "well-known" is something uncertain, so the only definitive information you get is this: is my interval on the Huygens-Fokker Foundation's list? :-). And yes, this is exactly what you've checked in this case. You cannot learn anything about any of the concrete commas from this page. For the contrast example, look at any good Wikipedia page. Sometimes you can start from some reference and end up with the study of an entire field of science... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;1,&nbsp;02:06&nbsp;UTC''
+== Space Tour ==
+Hey SA, I just finished another song- "Space Tour".  It's like 20 minutes long, and I know you find much science-fiction-type songs boring, but this song tells a story.  I posted on my userpage, and hope you like it! --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
+: I finally got myself some time to listen to it all paying attention it deserves. Yes, this is a very interesting piece, and a complicated one, by the way, and it does tell some imaginary story. Still, I certainly like "Folly..." more. I know, I once realized that all musical aesthetics is about some combination of the predictable and the surprise. Probably, this is a total truism, because many said something similar. Back to "Space Tour"... first of all, I'm interested to understand, what exactly do you mean by "mimicking" an EDO? One thing about the sound: I miss low timbers and low voice in general. Don't you think this is a present-day trend to work more on higher-pitch sound, higher-frequency noises, everything is higher? Where is that deep voice? Any comments on it? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;18:21&nbsp;UTC''
+:: When I talk about one EDO "mimicking" another, I refer to a larger EDO using a collection of its own steps to approximate the actual steps of a smaller EDO without the larger EDO actually being a superset of the smaller EDO.  As for the deep voices and low timbres, they are often used as chord roots in music- especially the more common variety of music that is built from the bass upwards.  I personally think that building music from the bass upwards music like this is but one of two ways to construct good music- the other being to build music from the treble downwards.  Music built from the treble downwards (treble-down music) is different from music built from the bass upwards mainly in terms of what I call the "direction of construction", as otherwise the two systems are mirror images of one another. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+::: I think I understand the idea, not sure that this is the correct understanding. First of all, a larger EDO is ''almost never'' a superset of a smaller EDO, because it would be the defeat of the purpose to provide a better approximation to harmonic intervals using more tones. Naturally, you can use a ''subset'' of a larger EDO, corresponding to some smaller EDO (corresponding tones can be simply identical, but only approximately) and use this subset. Perhaps it's just the term "mimicking" sounded confusing to me. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;18:55&nbsp;UTC''
+:::: Yeah, the way you put it here is more or less another valid definition of how I'm using the term "mimicking" here, as not every possible subset of the larger EDO actually approximates the smaller EDO, and sometimes, more than one subset of the larger EDO can do the job.  For the record, 159edo does have 53edo as a subset- and this is not considered "mimicking"- but that's okay, because 53edo is really really good in its own right when it comes to the 3 prime. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+::: As to deep voices: I meant something much more basic: to me, more deep voices and generally the amount of lower voices sounds more tolerable for the ears, and overly high, especially high-frequency noises, sounds more irritating. I noticed that historically the present-day trend is to emphasize higher pitches, even bass and baritone singers are somewhat rarer these days. I did not mean something like "building from the bass", however, this is an interesting topic. Notably, the Baroque perception of music was different from the modern. These days, we typically hear the main themes in a higher-pitch part and then pay attention to the other detail, including bass. In Baroque, basses played much more fundamental role. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;18:55&nbsp;UTC''
+:::: To me in music that is built from the bass upwards, the lowest bass serves as the driver of how the accompaniment moves- it is the line that all of the chords and stuff are built on top of, and the lowest bass line, along with the melody, both exert influence on one another at different times.  The problem I have with too many deep voices is that even thirds in the bass can sound rather grating when the notes in question are too low, more so than with higher pitches.  Higher pitches are more irritating when they're played in the wrong timbers and or when played too loud. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::: Right. Needless to say I only explain my personal feeling about it. Yes, the "build from the bass" is an interesting topic, only I'm pretty far from it and the composition in general. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;19:32&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::: I understand. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+: I'm busy with my platform and keyboard programming. I decided to take a much wider road: develop some more and some replacement visual components corresponding to different keyboards, including a new one suitable for your paradiatonic constructs — my idea is to present 7 scales at the same time on a single keyboard, still thinking of some form of switching modes on the fly, combined with transpositions, or something like that. At the same time, I implemented a prototype for the playable lattice presented by Kite Giedraitis: [[Color_notation|Color_notation]]. Even though it is called "notation", the main point here is the choice of the tonal system itself, which can be reduced to the choice of a 4-generator set, and its mapping to the geometry. (Why, why musicians often mess up musical and notation aspects together? Didn't they figure out that tight coupling is a big anti-pattern?) I've chosen to implement the 27-key variant, which I consider as a good variant of an "extended just" scale. Are you familiar with this particular system? What do you think? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;18:39&nbsp;UTC''
+:: Ah.  That makes sense.  While I am familiar with color notation to an extent, I should point out that Kite and I have a disagreement when it comes to the usage of intervals like the 40/27 grave fifth.  For instance, Kite thinks that interval ought to just be avoided whenever possible, while I think that 40/27 is actually useful when in the right position within a scale and in the hands of the right composer.   If you are asking whether or not I'm familiar with a 27-key system, I have to say that I'm mostly familiar with the traditional 12-key layout when it comes to actually playing on instruments.  That said, I do think I'm willing to experiment with other key layouts- that is, assuming I ever have the funds to get my hands on such things as I really don't have a lot of money. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+::: Any references to those arguments? By the 27-key system, I meant the particular layout on the Kite's page, [[Color_notation|first picture here]]. It is already playable on my prototype, you can try it out. Do you want to experiment with other playable keyboards? Then I can offer you my platform and my help... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;19:28&nbsp;UTC''
+:::: Here is the [[User talk:TallKite#Diatonic Scales|main example]].  Of course, this one is very civil, but I have been rude to the man on other occasions- even though I eventually apologized for it. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::: Thank you! Perhaps I can see some (potential?) weak points in your arguments. First, you don't explain your understanding of "proper". You need to understand one fundamental thing, something usually beyond the comprehension of most people, except those with certain backgrounds: the ''scope of applicability''. If you make some statement insisting on the application of any principle, you have to know its scope. In theory, it's very typical when the scope of applicability is unknown at first (is considered more universal than it actually is), so the limitations of the scope comes into play only when a more general theory is accepted and proven. (Let me give you one example: one theorist and microtonalist claimed that 31-EDO I presented to him makes no musical sense, because, say, ♯C is lower than ♭D, which is an "absurd". I argued that this is merely my notation, and his problem is that he is implicitly using the notion of accidentals, but the applicability of the notion itself may be out of the scope in the microtonal scope, or at least it needs to be proven.) Another problem I can see is that you may underestimate the power of ''small'' natural number N/D in rational-number intervals. Indeed, as this power is based on the physics and physiology of perception, the ''quality'' of the resonator comes into play. Taking it into account, you may face the situation when two intervals like 32/27 and 77/64 are clearly recognized as different melodically, but make no difference to the sense of the harmony, only because 77 and 64 are pretty big, and their small prime factors don't make a big difference.
+:::::: When I say "proper" in this context, I'm referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothenberg_propriety Rothenberg propriety].  Furthermore, I'm aware of the power of small rational intervals, and both [[7/5]] and [[6/5]] strongly imply a fundamental other than the Tonic by means of the virtual fundamental effect- this won't do at all as far as I'm concerned, as I like tonal stability.  At least [[8/5]] has the Tonic as a shared harmonic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::: Aha, thank you for the clarification. I'll try to sort it out and take it into consideration later. For now, I'll complete the playable keyboard based on the exact same layout and the tonal system as Kite's; it won't prevent its modification or development some of variants of it in near future. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;20:14&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::: For the record, [[27/16]] has the Tonic as a virtual fundamental as well, and seems to be the strongest example of a major sixth above the Tonic in this respect- [[5/3]], although simpler, implies a different note as the fundamental- again, this weakens tonal stability. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::: Again, among other things, I'll need to hear some examples by my own ears before I can evaluate it. I'm at the beginning of it, but ultimately I hope to have a convenient playground for doing such things. It already works for EDOs, so it should for the rational-number intervals and systems. Also, I have a comparison application based on circular keyboards, it works nicely and compares with just one intonation system, and I started to generalize it. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;20:26&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::: I'll be happy to provide some examples, at least for the sake of comparing 5/3 and 27/16, though I'll only do practice pieces for this so you can hear the differences in nature between these two intervals. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::: Later, later... It can be done in different ways, but this is how we did it: I developed a recorder for one of the keyboard applications (important for remote lessons and seminar, this is how they really use it), will add it to all other applications. My colleague plays some sequence and sends me via a chat, I copy and play it. It's pretty much like exchange of MIDI sequences: not audio, but event storage. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;20:50&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::: Okay, I know you're probably busy, but I still figured I'd give you some sound samples for you to listen to when you're ready.  This audio sample track contains two chords consisting of C7, E7, G7 and A7.  For both chords, the C7 is standard in terms of tuning while the E7 is flattened by 13.69 cents and the G7 is sharpened by 1.96 cents.  The only difference between the two chords is the tuning of the A7, as it is tuned 5.87 cents sharp in the first chord, but 15.64 cents flat in the second chord.  If you turn the volume up on your computer (don't turn it up ''too'' loud though), you should be able to hear a virtual C3 fundamental for the first chord, and a virtual F3 fundamental for the second chord.
+:::::::::::: [[File:Interval_Test.mp3]]
+:::::::::::: This difference in virtual fundamentals illustrates how the difference in tuning between the two versions of the A7 give the otherwise identical chords different harmonic properties- hence the reason for my preference of 27/16 over 5/3 as the interval for the major sixth. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: Thank you very much, but you see, it may sound surprising, but I cannot hear much in these settings. To grasp it, I'll need to play it by myself. This is fairly simple. Let me give you an example and list some missing points. First, when you say "contains two chords consisting of C7, E7, G7 and A7", it may mean two "complex chords", such as first, C7+ E7 and second, G7+A7, or something else. When you name chords, I don't care about some detail, but need to know: which C7? in what tonal system? Usually, people using this notation assume 12-EDO. When you say "flattened" or "sharpened", I would need to know which degrees are changed. Even better to give not cent notation, but directly rational-number notation. This is one intentionally simplified example: you say "play C6 as 1, 5/4, 3/2, 5/3 followed by C6 as 1, 5/4, 3/2, 27/16, hear the difference" with your comment on what "weakens tone stability" and other function-related comments. With EDO, you could use the terms such as 12-EDO 3rd, 12-EDO 6th, possibly with ♯/♭. With other EDOs, ♯/♭ are ambiguous, so I add the number of microtones relative to the degree, such as: "41-EDO ♯2 6th". Then I'll easily play absolutely anything, no matter what you specify. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;00:39&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::: So, you need to play the audio file when you're by yourself?  I understand.  Still, given your comments, it sounds like I should perhaps clarify things for you.  In this sound file, the two CM6 chords are both built on a C7 that has a frequency of roughly 2093.0045224048 Hz.  The first CM6 chord has the configuration of roughly 1/1-5/4-3/2-27/16, while the second CM6 chord has the configuration of roughly 1/1-5/4-3/2-5/3.  Because a note forming a 5/3 ratio with C occurs very early in the harmonic series of F and 5/3 does not occur as an interval distance from C in C's own harmonic series, or even the C's own subharmonic series, the 1/1-5/4-3/2-5/3 configuration of the CM6 chord has a strong virtual fundamental effect that implies a Tonic of F even when F itself is not a direct component of the chord, thus destabilizing the 1/1-5/4-3/2-5/3 chord on C in relation to the key of C Major. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::: I guess that at the end of the day, the core idea of my approach to rational intervals and music is that while small rational intervals between the ''right two notes'' in a scale can establish and or cement a sense of tonality, small rational intervals between the ''wrong two notes'' in a scale can easily disrupt and or destabilize a sense of tonality by means of the virtual fundamental effect and or the lowest shared harmonic. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::: Yes, I can understand it. And thank you for the description on the chord example, it is very close to my guess and now is clear. Today, I got another new idea; it happened when I mentioned "playground". I'll postpone this paradiatonic application and first will try to suggest something similar, but closer to the idea of "Playground". This application will accept user's tonal values and put them in a simple yet ready-to use keyboard. This way, you could combine random ideas, try out by playing and listening, and change the repertoires of available tones in seconds. Doesn't it sound interesting? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;02:22&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::: The "Playground" idea does sound interesting, though the question remains as to how exactly to program complicated tonal values.  On another note, when you say "Yes, I can understand it," what is the "it" you are referring to?  Sorry for the massive edit, but I didn't feel like I was being clear. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::: Well, I think I can understand your consideration of the sense of tonality, disruption, concepts you've shared before.
+:::::::::::::::::: Right.  I guess that means my only question on this front concerns whether or not my aforementioned concepts and considerations in this sphere actually make logical sense in light of known phenomena like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental virtual fundamental effect] and your own observations of the sound sample of two different CM6 chords that I provided. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::: First of all, the phenomenon of <EDIT>missing fundamental<end EDIT> goes outside the problems of tonal systems, and I'm not sure if you understand it or disagree. I suspect you overestimate its importance. We can afford to ignore this phenomenon for almost all practical purposes. By the way, the case when an overtone suggests a missing degree of a chord is more important. This is why so-called "power chord" works. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;08:30&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::: If an overtone can suggest missing chord degrees, it stands to reason that an undertone can do the same thing.  For example, when high-pitched power chords are put through a more extensive version of the same process used to produce extra bass sounds, they generate minor chords. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::: I do in fact disagree with you when it comes to the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside the problems of tonal systems.  The way I see it, the Tonic is at its strongest when it not only has the smallest possible rational intervals relative to all the notes in the scale, but is also the note that can generate all the other notes in the set purely through its own overtone series and undertone series.  It's not just one of these facets that provides a sense of tonality but both.  If tonality is like an entire building, then fundamental frequencies matching the tonic's pitch class are like the type of material that makes for the strongest type of foundation- does this analogy make any practical sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::: I never meant "the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside...", it was a typo, sorry. Please see above: <EDIT>...<end EDIT>. Are you sure you understand the phenomenon correctly? In this Wikipedia article, some important considerations are missing. It needs some time to describe the idea and the questionable parts. It actually comes to theoretical mechanics (not "theoretical mechanics" learned by engineers, but the real thing, mostly the formalism of Lagrange, Hamilton, and then Emmy Noether), where the orthogonal space of modes can be understood, as well as the role of linearity and non-linear effects. (The usual myth of musicians is to call the physical-mathematics basis of music "acoustics", but in fact, there is next to nothing about real acoustics in music theory, but there is a lot of theoretical mechanics, abstract algebra, infinite-dimension functional spaces, theory of numbers, and the like.) Even for linear mechanics, this Wikipedia article considers only the sets of "similar" modes, like string or air vibrations with different number of nodes. Real life is more complicated. On this site, or maybe on some referenced sites, I saw a simple marimba example with some unrelated modes (all real modes do not interact due to linearity, but some modes are also "unrelated"). Now, we can always have a fundamental on an unrelated type of modes, which is lower than the most perceivable fundamental, and, in this case, these frequencies can be also totally unrelated, without any integer-number fractions. ...I understand my text is messy here. If you are interested, I can explain it properly. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;20:35&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::: Thanks for the clarification.  Still, missing fundamentals, from what I gather, are important to tonality by virtue of their implying the existence of an ''actual'' fundamental frequency that generates the note set in question within a reasonable degree of approximation- unnoticeable commas notwithstanding.  Yes, actual fundamentals and the missing fundamental effect are two different mechanisms, and indeed there are parts of Wikipedia's explanation that are questionable and it wouldn't be the first such instance.  Nevertheless, the end result is that the missing fundamental effect highlights actual musical relationships- without the highlighted note in question actually being physically present. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::: Hm... Fundamentally (pun unintended), there is no difference between "tones" and "overtones", that's the key. When a sound wave reaches our ears, the information on the way of its generation is already lost. And yet, we "perceive" the audible modes as such, and mentally associate them with some instrument/oscillator, but it happens only because we hear pretty much what we expect to hear — we basically know how a certain type of musical instrument should behave. This is not pure, but a conceptual perception. That said, if we produce some totally alien sound, without an attempt to model any known real-life mechanical objects, there won't be any mode perception. Or, perhaps, the frequencies can be sensed as the "modes" of a speaker device, which is pretty much the same — no modes, there is no implied object having the modes. If it sounds unlikely, here is one less idealized example: throat singing. When many people hear this singing for the very first time, they often cannot realize what's going on, and later cannot reproduce it. We find it difficult to reproduce not because of physical difficulties. No, we simply don't have a model of what's going on, don't see any analog in our previous experience. Likewise, I saw many people nearly incapable of pronouncing a very simple sound of a foreign language or a combination... This is all the mental model issue, no more no less. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;22:53&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: If this is the case, then there is no difference between "tones" and "undertones" either. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::: True. Those are the attributes of some model of an instrument/oscillator. Even if the model is mental, it suggests that some *-tones are the properties of the same object. Without this object, the sound is just an abstract set of frequencies and complex amplitudes (or real amplitudes and phases, which is the representation of the same thing) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;23:46&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::::::: By the way, do you know about the nonlinear properties of our aural system? It was even used in historical organs. I mean, the phenomenon has nothing to do with brain processing. The sound is physically generated in the head out of the sound waves. It can generate a sound which does not physically present in the air, say, combination frequencies which cannot appear in any linear systems due to the superposition principle. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;20:35&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::: Oh yes, I know all about that.  In fact, while some consonances- such as those involving sum tones and difference tones- are based on a linear mathematical relationship (as noted by [[User:CritDeathX|Sam Pulley]] in [[User talk:CritDeathX #Ideas of Consonance|a conversation we had about the matter]]), there is an equivalent type of consonances that seems to be based on what I call a "contralinear" mathematical relationship- these particular tones being what I call "contrasum" and "contradifference" tones.  We seem to need a new set of mathematical symbols in order to shorten the process of solving the mathematical problems involved in finding these contralinear tones.  For example, a 10:12:15 minor triad is identical to a pitch relationship in which the frequencies are related the the following mathematical relationship 1/4:1/5:1/6.  In order to solve for the contrasum and contradifference tones with the current set of mathematical relationships, we would currently need to take the multiplicative inverse of each of the fractions in the 1/4:1/5:1/6 ratio, solve for sum and difference tones among the resulting whole number ratios, and then take the multiplicative inverse of the answers we get- or something like that. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::: I would not be so sure. :-) What are you talking about? sum/difference frequencies need at least some mode interaction. But such interaction is by definition a non-linearity. The concept of "mode" fundamentally means that they are orthogonal, the subject of the superposition principle. Roughly speaking, modes don't see each other. When you project two laser lights on two different points and the beams pass across each other, none of the beams affect another one. Non-linearity can happen when the media is linear. For example, when the dielectric permittivity somehow depends on the value of the electric field of the wave, the change created by one beam warps the wave distribution of another beam, so it deflects. Normally, non-linearity happens with very high intensities (of anything). And yes, more sophisticated emission on sum/difference frequencies also takes place. Only all of it is non-linearity, again, by the definition. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;22:17&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: I'm talking about talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone Combination tones], and also about additional pairs of tones that have a relationship to the logarithmic curve of sound perception akin to that of linear tones, only these other tones are along a decidedly non-linear curve.  It would help more to go into an example, I think.  Say you have a dyad (two note chord) consisting of frequencies of 440 Hz and 528 Hz.  I imagine you know more about the combination tones that can result from this set of frequencies that I do, as well as how the frequencies of the combination tones are related to the actual tones by addition and subtraction, right?  Well, Sam says that the linear relationship between the frequencies the actual tones and the combination tones leads to a sort of consonance, but, I'm saying that there are another set of tones related to that set of actual frequencies in a manner that is decidedly non-linear, yet is percieved to be just as consonant.  In this case, we see the sum and difference tones resulting from 440 Hz and 528 Hz are 968 Hz and 88 Hz respectively, however, when we check the frequency relationships between all the pitches involved, we see a distinct set of intervals.  The frequencies of 528 and 440 Hz form a 6/5 ratio, the frequencies of 528 Hz and 968 Hz form an 11/6 ratio, and the frequencies of 88 Hz and 440 Hz form a 5/1 ratio.  If we take these ratios and line them up in such a way as to reflect the pitches involved from lowest to highest, we get a chord, that consists of the following steps 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, am I right?  Now, if we take the multiplicative inverses of the ratios in the sequence, we get 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11.  Now, since we know that the interval between the 5/1 and 6/1 in the chord 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, is identical to the interval between the 1/55 and 1/6 in the chord 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11- both being 6/5- and since we now want to find what I'm calling the "contrasum" and "contradifference" tones of 440 Hz and 528 Hz, we can assume that 440 Hz doubles as the 1/6 interval and that 528 Hz doubles as the 1/5 interval.  Since multplying 440 by 6 gives you 2640, and since multiplying 528 by 5 also gives you 2640, that means that 2640 Hz is the "contradifference" tone to 440 Hz and 528 Hz.  Since 2640 Hz corresponds to the 1/1 in the 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11 chord, we now can solve for the "contrasum" tone in one of several ways- for the sake of simplicity, we'll just divide 2640 by 11 in order to find the frequency of the "contrasum" tone represented in the chord by the ratio of 1/11, and this tone turns out to be 240 Hz.  Once you arrange the 2640 Hz frequency and the 240 Hz frequency in a chord together with the original 440 Hz and 528 Hz, you find that the resulting chord is just as consonant as the chord consisting of 88 Hz, 440 Hz, 528 Hz, and 968 Hz- once one takes the direction of chord construction into account.  If you keep repeating this proceedure with different frequencies with different intervals, you'll eventually have a better idea as to the nature of the pitch relationships that I'm calling "contralinear". --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::: Then please read this Wikipedia article and see that this is a non-linear phenomenon. This is exactly what I explained before and in contradiction with your "on a linear mathematical relationship". I understand that you might mean something different, but then it would mean that you did not respond to my considerations about linearity and diverted the discussion to something else. Either way, you are avoiding the essence of things. In your last message, you again ignore my explanations related to non-linearity and address the mass of the facts. Please understand, nothing is resolved by the mass. In mathematics you refer to, there is only the common notion of linearity, roughly speaking, A * x + B, without higher-power members (other functions can be represented by Lorenz). This simple property leads to the fact that waves don't interact unless they penetrate the non-linear head or other non-linear media. :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;01:20&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: At first, I thought you were talking about something different- you know, the non-linear logarithmic curve of sound perception.  I wasn't talking about the physical non-linearity of the system and the particular set of mathematical relationships associated with that, as indeed I'm not a physicist.  I have to admit I don't know enough about physics to know some of those specifics, and I'm sorry for not addressing that properly.  Indeed I was working with the common notion of "linearity", and, now that I think of it, I suspect Sam was too. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::: First of all, it tells me that we always will be able to solve those communication problems. I also have something for this purpose: tons of patience; and also I'm not afraid of looking too stupid. Okay, will you now look at new Playground section? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;01:47&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::: Come to think of it, I think we actually need to speak to Sam about his [[User:CritDeathX/Sam's Idea Of Consonance|ideas of consonance]], as well as about how to flesh out the idea of "contralinear tones" based on our discussion. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::: I just looked it through. I'm not quite sure. Don't you think he might confuse "consonance" with some other quality like "resolution", "stability", or something more complicated? On the other hand, perhaps the term "consonance" has other meanings I don't quite understand... Also, historically the attitudes and even "rules" related to  "consonance" have changed. But I don't think it changed the understanding of consonance. In my understanding, not the notion itself was changing, but some kind of attitude, understanding of "acceptable degree of dissonance". Closer to modern times, "dissonant" structures became more and more acceptable and more wanted, pleasing in some ways. And I think this is good. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;22:31&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, we won't know for sure if we don't talk to him, that much is a given.  However, it is definitely the case that there's more than one type of "consonance"- [[harmonic entropy]] minima being a notable example. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::: I don't know, really. How about two examples? I'm absolutely new to "harmonic entropy" though. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;00:02&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, "concordance" (as mentioned in the harmonic entropy article) is one example.  Another example can be derived from the fact that 7/5 is a concordant interval, yet, [[10/7]]- 7/5's more discordant [[octave complement]]- is also considered "consonant", but this consonance is clearly of a different variety from "concordance"- I'd term 10/7's type of consonance "inverse concordance", at least until we can think up a better name. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh, and remember what I was talking about when I mentioned "connectivity" before?  Basically, "connectivity"- for lack of a better term at the moment- is the type of "consonance" that only exists between a given pitch class and other pitch classes that are generated by the first pitch class's overtone series and undertone series- it's the kind of consonance that seems to do the lion's share of the work when it comes to establishing tonality. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, I'm having to invent terminology here, but I'm alluding to stuff that I suspect is very much real in some form or fashion. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]])
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do have some more detailed prelimiary ideas on "connectivity" in particular on [[User:Aura/Aura's Ideas of Consonance|my page concerning my ideas of consonance]].  What's perhaps more noteworthy is that I think I have an idea for how to isolate connectivity mathematically- albiet expressed in some rather unsophisticated terms. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: I think I know one of the problems we're having- the fact is that differing fields of study use the same words in different ways and with different meanings.  That might be contributing to our communication issues just between the two of us. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::: I don't think it's a significant problem. Indeed, some people are very much confined to the "profession", then it's difficult, and in practice often an unsolvable problem. It's important to see that the world is only one, and all those "here in chemistry is not like there in physics" reflects more the cognitive limitations of people. As to us, I see that we can resolve such problems. The lack of some parts of education or weak understanding of certain things — this can be a serious problem, not terminology. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;23:55&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::: Now, about the problem, how "exactly to program complicated tonal values". First, the problems are solved using the "divide and conquer" method and "separation of concerns". In particular, tone values can be abstracted from the technical means of sound production. Another thing is: it's good to "think by hands". (In our case, "hands" is the generalization of several things: hands, fingers, hearing, etc.) When you don't understand how to solve the problem, of, course, think about understanding but also start working with incomplete understanding and uncertainties. As you try, you can get a better feeling of the problem, will be able to get rid of some illusionary ideas and get new ones... Moreover, in some analogous ways, I many times recommended people to... avoid reading literature. Here is what I mean: it's good to try to solve a problem from scratch by yourself. Why? First, you won't miss a pretty rare chance of inventing something really new. More realistically, when you read, you don't quite understand reading at first, because the illusionary understanding is quite common, besides, you can be affected by some well-established ideas and reduce your chances for a fresh look. And when you tried hard and broke some of your teeth at the problem, you can use what you learned, and then you will ready with much better understanding. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;04:01&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::: There are definitely a lot of merits to that approach, but in my experience, incomplete data can lead to wrong conclusions.  This is especially true in cases where the data is wrongly interpreted- or worse, outright ignored- though it would be ill-advised for me to talk about specific examples of these sorts of things here and now for a variety of reasons- not the least of which is the potential for pointless arguments. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::: I should have said that it also depends on individual traits, but I thought this is too obvious. Incomplete data? This is what is our brain is sharpened for. I have some arguments in favor of dealing with incomplete data and looking at this incompleteness as a normal thing. First of all, data is always incomplete, when it comes to science. Not all people can interpret an incomplete set of facts objectively, but being misled by other people is worse. Come to think about, this is because we actually tend to be convinced too easily. This is the result of our social skills, social adaptation mechanism. The observation of so many heated discussions should not fool us, this is not the dominant trend. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;08:45&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::: By the way, do you really still use MP3?! It is not just obsolete, it is stone age, with ridiculous quality and compression. Top Web standard is .opus, is supported by everything. Probably, MP3 is alive only due to the existence of the devices like car audio — nothing is so conservative as those weird people designing such devices. :-)
+:::::::::::::: Unfortunately, Musescore 3- the program I used to make music- does not support .opus files. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::: This is not important. Okay, Musescore is obsolete in this aspect, but it doesn't matter. It's very usual that you use some standards (sometime proprietary) for everyday work, but something different for publications. This is not a problem; you can convert anything to anything. Most universal FFMpeg does it all on all platforms. Latest news in containers and codecs are amazing, by the way. First of all, this is availability of open-source no-royalty AV1 codec (now even with reasonably fast encoder) for absolutely standard WebM/Matroska containers. It compresses my already compressed phone video 10 times without any noticeable loss of quality. Modern raster graphics standard is WebP, it totally renders obsolete JPEG, PNG, and GIF (because animation is also supported) and even TIFF and all lossless standards, because even lossless compression is better than nearly anything else. And for 2D vector, SVG remains the only standard; you use it. I can show my presentation, it's very interesting (in turn, I rendered obsolete all those offices presentation packages, provide open-source and very lean browser-based alternative; if interested, I'll give you a link) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;02:14&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::: Perhaps you can convince Musescore 3's developers to enable the support of things like .opus files.  I know that Musescore has many of the kinds of options I actually need for composition, so there's that. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::: Well, I learned to brainwash people less and do more by myself, even though I sometimes managed to influence people by insisting on some right ideas persistently. But in this particular case it doesn't worth it. Simply work on what the product offers you, and convert to what you need for output. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;03:44&nbsp;UTC''
+:::: As to whether or not I want to play with other keyboards, the answer is yes.  That said, money is still an issue, and I'm not exactly willing to borrow money to pay for stuff if I can help it.  If I need to pay for stuff, I'd rather have the funds to pay for it myself. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::: Very good. First of all, "paying" for anything is totally unrelated to all my activity on this topic now and in foreseeable future. Not only my platform is open-source and based on permissive licenses, but all my help I provide now is based on mutual interests, promotion of collaboration, and so on. Just ask if you have any questions, or I'll present to you my last results when I come to next suitable point. But you don't have to wait for this moment... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Sunday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;6,&nbsp;20:08&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::: Ah.  That makes sense. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+== Microtonal Playground (Part 1) ==
+Okay, the application already works, and I already filled in your paradiatonic scales for the demo.
+I will publish it as an experimental product under development really soon, then I plan the completion and fully-fledged publication.
+So, here is some questions. First, I happen to know your real name (given + family name), so asking just in case: can I mention it publicly in some document (credits/contributors, help, demo file, article)? Of course, you will know the precise context where it can be mentioned.
+Can you take the labor of playing with it and some testing? First of all, it would be good if you check up your own scales, both sound and labels on the keys.
+Everything works, I only want a bit more testing and fixes, and expose a bunch of small common things which are already there for other applications: controls of volume, sustain, transposition (unfortunately, only by octave in this case, as there is no a well-defined tone or microtone, as this is not necessarily a EDO — any better idea?), and also the presentation of metadata and help. And then, there must be a recorder. We will be able to play exact same things by sending around a record and a tonal system data file. If you want it now, I'll send you a link, but my plan is to prepare a bit more and put a link on my main xen.wiki page as "Experimental"...
+What do you think?
+: You do indeed have permission to mention me by name- though we must work out the exact context for these mentionings, as there may be other info that needs to be either suppressed for privacy concerns or included for clarification.  As for the testing, I need a link. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:: Please take a look: [[User:SAKryukov#Experimental:_Microtonal_Playground|Experimental: Microtonal Playground]] on my [[User:SAKryukov|main page]]. This section provides some minimal introduction, and the application comes with incomplete but quite sufficient Help.html.
+:: Note the link under your name, and the "scale" link before. It it fine? There is no any references to you in the application, but my plan is: enter the name/links in the "user.data" metadata properties, provide viewer for current tonal system metadata, add "Credits" sections to the help. Makes sense? Please, if I make any inappropriate or incorrect reference to your material, let me know as soon as possible. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;20:31&nbsp;UTC''
+::: I actually like most of what I'm seeing in the microtonal playground.  The only thing I presently don't like is the current layout of the bottom scale, as 3/2 doesn't appear in that scale where as 4/3 does.  Other than that, it is a very interesting thing to play around with, especially since you can create other scales through pressing keys in a diagonal fashion.  So far, the information you have presented on your page is accurate.  When the page you linked is updated, then we'll discuss how to modify your links, and for that, we need Xenwolf's help, as I forget how to link older versions of pages. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::: Well, thank you. Now, which bottom line? The real bottom row is "Demo", its only purpose to show how to a insert fixed-frequency key, a key with a custom label, a disabled key, and <code>repeat</code>. Don't you say that ''your'' "bottom row" named "Locrian" (actually, second last) is wrong? Sorry that I only roughly tested your scales, done them very quickly. (Did you noticed the ''titles'' on the keys which read "Ionian", "Dorian", ..., "Locrian", "Demo"?) I meant that the rows show have the same scale as ''your'' correspondent scales. Did you double-check that they match? And did you look at the file "user.data" which you could edit (in the same directory)? There is a short explanation on [[User:SAKryukov#Experimental:_Microtonal_Playground|my main page]]. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:28&nbsp;UTC''
+::::: I'm talking about the second-to-bottom row, the lowest row with nothing but notes.  Sorry for forgetting about all the technical buttons on the bottom. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::: Yes, thank you! It's Locrian. Fixed. Please re-load the page (usually Ctrl+R) and see. It is the only 5th degree with 4/3 instead of 2/3, right? The usual paste bug. Is it all good now? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:38&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::: Almost fixed- the fourth degree of the scale is actually 4/3, while the fifth degree of Locrian is actually 64/45- the buttons are in the wrong order. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::: Ah... few sec... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:45&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::: Yes, fixed, looks correct, but... push did not reach the auto-published product site on GitHub, they have a mysterious delay, may appear later today or tomorrow. I reported this problem to them, they did not reproduce it. No matter, I can notify you. Also, you can download the entire product (there are all links on my main page); first, it will be up-to-date, secondly, you can try editing the tonal system and try. However, this is a very simple thing, but I would like you to take a look, maybe provide some critique... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:58&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::: Aha, '''''now''''' the fix is propagated to the site, you can take a look. Thank you for the correction! &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;00:12&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::: What do you think of my idea of auto-repeated tones? On the example of your scale, you write only the degrees, in your case, 7 of them. Instead of second 1st, you write the special object <code>repeat</code>, for example:
+::::::::: <code>[interval(1), interval(9,8), interval(5,4), interval(4,3), interval(3,2), interval(27,16), interval(15,8), repeat],</code> and then the system automatically fills in missing key data to the end of the key row, moving to next octave on each next 1/1...
+::::::::: What is <code>interval</code>? Even though for this particular application numbers would suffice, what it returns is not a number! This is a more complicated object; the set of them implements the same very systems of ''regular intervals'', a ''free Abelian group'' used in this part of musical theory. I developed this formalism for wider purposes, such as generator systems and other group theory approaches. This object is semantically similar to Monzo, it is maintained in the factorized form, the group operations are done on the maps of prime factors, and so on, complete operation set. Are you familiar with all that? I would assume you are, and a lot of material on this site assumes the readers can work with such notions. Right? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;00:27&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::: I have to admit I don't really know how to program all that well, and I'm only partially familiar with some of the terminology on here- some of the other microtonal music theory is not an area I've gotten to yet as I've only been on this wiki since the end of August myself. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::: Surely, you don't need to know how to ''program'' it, if you are not into it already, but the mathematical aspects, this group theory things are important for your activity, as many aspects are based on it. Right now, I'm into it very much, can clarify many things. This matter is easy to learn, provided the source of knowledge is reasonably good. By the way, I noticed a lot of really bad mistakes in Mike Battaglia's lectures (plain false statements or simply confusions), commented on them, did not get any reply from the author, only [[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] expressed agreement with me. Unfortunately, this entire material has to be replaced. It is referenced from the site's main page and is bad for the site's reputation. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;01:47&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::: @SA: If you'd take the time to write a introduction about group theory in respect to music, at least ''I'' would highly appreciate this. Thanks.<sub>...and sorry for disturbing</sub> --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::: Wait, did you mean "Monzo" or "Gonzo"?  I don't know about "Gonzo" but I do know about "Monzo", and yes, I do work with that bit of math by means of my decade-old graphing calculator. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: [[Monzo|Monzo]]! Thank you. This is my "favorite" kind of typo, you know. Fixed above.
+:::::::::::::: That makes more sense. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: Unfortunately, you cannot do any kind of mathematics on a calculator :-). Okay, about those typos, some funny story. I always get into some funny situations. For my very first international conference, I've sent a paper named "Shall we Replace...?" And I made a typo in the very title. It was "Shell we...?". People praised me for the quality of the article text itself, and they fixed the typo in the Proceedings... years after the conference. Someone explained to me, that the editors thought that my title was made with the intent to make some funny wordplay. Probably, someone imagined that by saying "Shell we Replace...?" I implied some kind of software "shell" I proposed to replace with my technology.
+::::::::::::: Also, for years I thought that "weather" and "whether" is the same word, one word, and thought it was perfectly reasonable. I thought that the weather is so uncertain that nobody can know whether it can be good or not tomorrow, hence the same word in the language. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;03:07&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::: For the record, my calculator is a TI-89 Titanium, so it's not just your common desktop calculator.  I agree that there's some calculators that your really can't do good math on, but this one you actually can- at least you can get the Monzos of rational intervals with the "factor" function. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::: I did not mean that, about the calculator. Ah, you probably call calculations "math". This calculator still works with numbers, right? But, in a way, mathematics is something opposite to the numbers, even though there is a big theory of numbers in mathematics, and a lot more. Sometimes I say that going in for mathematics is one of the ways to avoid doing any calculations whatsoever. :-) Software and computing science too, by the way... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;03:22&nbsp;UTC'' 03:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::: So "mathematics" isn't the same as "number crunching".  Interesting idea, but I suppose there's merit to that idea after all- especially if it turns out that the formula for deductive logic can be stated as something like A + A<sub>N</sub> → C with "A" being the additional argument, "A<sub>N</sub>" being the sum of any and all additional arguments, and "C" being the conclusion (an idea I've had floating around for a while now). --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::: Well, it's not just this. I meant that in practice if you do some mathematics, on a personal level you can distance yourself from any kinds of practical calculations. One of the driving forces is the elimination of all kinds of repetitive work and too concrete notions. Even the merit of mathematics is not just the calculation, even though the absolutely concrete solutions of practical problems is the major part of it. First of all, it gives a common language to the sciences. This way, it helps to unite the sciences. Remember, I mentioned "real" theoretical mechanics, as opposed to what engineers usually learn? Here, the popular physical paradigm "same equations => same solutions" works. Say, in Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formalism the objects are not necessarily mechanical objects. Simply put, you can assemble a thingy made of weights, springs, solenoids, resistors and capacitors and analyze it with a single common system of equations, which is totally agnostic to which part of it is "mechanical" and which one is "electrical". And this is exactly the same notion of "theoretical mechanics" relevant to the theory of music. You don't need to classify vibrations into mechanical, acoustical, electrical, or, say, hydrodynamical — they all can be composed in a single instrument, working together and not separated theoretically. I noticed some usual fallacy in some musical theorist I knew: they often consider the human ear as something separate from the musical instruments, a pure receptor device. But the correct approach is to consider the ear as the same kind of system as any musical instrument — working together. Well, I also know people who do understand that. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:08&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::: Excuse me, I still don't know: do you confirm that after my last fix your 7 scales are put correctly in the Microtonal Playground? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:18&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::: Yes.  The 64/45 interval is a diminished fifth, and Locrian actually does have this kind of fifth.  A 64/45 diminished fifth doesn't operate in the exact same way as a 3/2 perfect fifth when it comes to music- even though there are operational similarities- and this is one reason why many musicians don't seem to know how to handle Locrian mode. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 05:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::: So, all seems to be right? — thank you! I knew that Locrian was considered tricky. :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:29&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::: And may I ask you to avoid separating my paragraphs separated by the indent into separate fragments by your newer comments? I'm trying to support this: if I use two indented paragraphs without separating them by an empty line, I mean to keep them together, so your added comment can come after them, but not in between. Two funny stories about my typos became separated due to this problem, I just moved them back together. Ok? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:34&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::: Right then.  Some paragraphs seem to be suitable for splitting apart from one another, while others are not.  It doesn't help that not every user has the same style in regards to this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::: Thank you for understanding. "Not the same style" could be a problem, but the priority should be given to the author of the original post, as this person knows the original intent better than the author of a secondary comment; I hope you'll agree. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;06:53&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::: I do agree when it comes to the original content rule.  However, we should perhaps talk to Xenwolf about how to more reliably distinguish the two types of multiparagraph posts. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::: Ah, when we both post in parallel on the same page, I noticed that my comment sometimes get lost. Maybe I'm just not careful enough... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:34&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::: We both make that same mistake to be honest, and I do think Xenwolf will have to teach you the exact procedure for what to do when your text is what gets deleted due to an edit conflict.  I may have basically summarized the general essence of that procedure on his page, and it may be true that whether it's my comment that gets lost or your comment that gets lost is kind of up to timing, but truth be told, I imagine that there are other details and nuances that he's better able to fill in- because he's an admin. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::: I'm not sure. If you think we both done some mistakes, can you explain how to avoid it? Maybe your first comment on the topic was correct: this is the simple behavior of the system: earlier post knocks out the uncommitted post when another user is still in an editing state? This is not good enough, but is simple and kind of natural. :-)
+::::::::::::::::::: The systems I worked with were on top of the revision control, where the resolutions are fundamental. By the way, do you use any revision control in your work? Believe me, this is heaven. When I started to use them in all cases, all my life went much easier. Even if I have the smallest project, even if the entire project is a pretty short post or a document in a single text file, I create a local revision control repository and work on it. All steps are reversible, you cannot possibly lose anything, you can find traces of your earlier efforts in no time, and so on... It takes absolute minimum of resources, installs and configures in a minute, just brilliant help from a tiny piece of software. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;07:06&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::: Yes, the earlier post does in fact seem to knock out the uncommitted post while the other person is still editing, so there's that.  If revision control involves a program I don't have I might not be able to use it- then again, revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles, and you and I both seem to be spectacularly prone to typos, even though you use revision control all the time.  Revision control on my end is more likely when I'm attempting to edit another type of document.  That said, I do think Xenwolf should walk you through the procedure of preventing the complete loss of those uncommitted posts for good measure, and I asked him about it. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::: Okay, probably we understand how such posts conflict. Now, "revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles"? No, I think you are not right. 1) In the present situation, there is no difference between articles and talks, so revision control would be equally useful. 2) In better situation, say, on GitHub where wiki is fundamentally integrated, the talk looks "more talkative", much closer to the chat software, which is much more usable: people are not working at the same document. Instead, each post goes in a separate section, everything is automatic, you don't have to do these very annoying indents, and yet it's quite apparent which comment you are commenting. And when people work at the same document, this is just a work at a file, no matter if this is a wiki or any other file, same revision-controlled behavior. Also, there are no special "Talk" pages, which is also very good. Instead, a discussion can be opened on every event, first of all, a commit pushed to the central repository. A commit, release, tag, some action, but not a file. This is very logical: what we discuss? Not a file itself, but rather a decision: adding a bunch of tiles, changing them, a request, and so on. It absolutely cannot prevent any free discussions. Say, you request some approval from members for the decision affecting others? Okay, we discuss it first, then decide together. It is not related to actual permissions, we can use different permission policies, from a very free one to a very strict. Mediawiki is great, simple but just overly generalized, maybe oversimplified: the concept of Talk is no different from an article, so we don't have chat-specific features, so this is not so convenient in first place. Maybe you simply need to look at such systems where wiki is integrated with revision control, then you would have a better feel of it. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;08:03&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::::::: And, as you often say, for a record: I do not use any revision control for my talks on this site (more exactly, I do have some repository, but this is more of a TODO collection). If revision control is not well integrated, the trade-off between efforts and the usefulness is not so good. With real articles, the story is totally different: I developed a pretty big publishing system, worked as a contributor for the Microsoft Visual Studio Code (in contrast to bulky Visual Studio, brilliant editor and IDE: open-source, multi-platform, very light weight). I easily adopt any article project to any reasonable requirements, always work on revision control, and almost never use any online editors. But then this approach helps me to push an article to the publication pretty much in a single shot. For a talk with its small posts, it would be way to much bothering... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;08:36&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::: It sounds like we actually have a somewhat similar stance regarding revision control for talks on this site- the only thing is that talk pages on this Wiki are those pages that are specifically designated for host such talks, where as other pages (especially the ones I'm referring to as actual articles) are not.  There may not be any difference from a technical standpoint, but I'm more concerned about the designated function of the page when it comes to this.  On my end, I have to admit I don't have even a proper repository in most cases, so that's on me.  Also, I don't exactly keep track of Mediawiki's technical aspects as I'm not an admin. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::: On another note, the statement I use is "for the record", not "for a record".  I've done enough studies on Russian (informal studies of course) to know that the function of words like "a" and "the" in English is accounted for in Russian by the definite and indefinite forms on verbs, with "the" corresponding to the marker on Russian's definite forms while "a" and "an" correspond to the marker on Russian's indefinite forms whenever they actually appear.  Yes there's functional differences between words like "a", "an" and "the" and the markers on Russian's definite and indefinite forms- namely that in some cases, such as with Proper nouns, the word "the" isn't always needed, while "a" and "an" are only use for single objects- other functional aspects are quite similar.  Just thought you might want to know. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::: Ha! Thank you for the note. What you say is perfectly true. You know, I sometimes participate in discussions over one great Russian Youtube channel devoted to English, have some involvement in linguistics, and understand such issues related to different patterns and lines of thinking in different cultures. You probably know that Russian is very complicated, highly synthetic-inflectional, and lacks articles, but article functions do exist in some strange ways. We discussed a lot of interesting and often very funny things. I'm not sure you correctly understand the expression of "article functions" in Russian. First of all, I don't know what is "indefinite form of nouns", I only understand "indefinite verb", and I think the notion "indefinite" is not even used in Russian. Article function is more typically expressed with an adjective. However, nouns also can play some role. I'll give you only some funny examples. For example, in modern jargon, people  often use the moderately rude word "pepper" (or "horseradish", with the jargon use of complicated euphemism origin) meaning simply "male person". In certain contexts, one of this jargon meanings is "a man" as opposed to "the man", that is, some man, no matter who, or unknown one. There are many similar cases. Now, one funny adjective example. One day, my friend and former roommate make my guest laugh by saying in the discussion on some legal matter: "Suppose, you have some abstract wife...". I knew him better, so for me, his manner of expression was natural. Indeed, in some "cultured" communities the adjective "abstract" is used to carry just the function of the indefinite article. :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;19:04&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: Sorry, I forgot that Russian does the definite-indefinite distinction with verbs rather than nouns, but funny enough, some languages- if I recall correctly- express the definite-indefinite function on nouns rather than verbs.  My mistake.  Fixed in my above comment. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::: Please, no need to apologize, and thank you! This is just a very interesting topic. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;19:56&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: I must also point out that for one of my other projects, I'm actually trying to create a language that is descended from English in the same way that Spanish, Italian and French are all descended from Latin.  This language is weird in some ways because the parts that decline verbs in this language of mine are prefixes rather than suffixes- oh, and there's a realist future tense for things that are bound to happen as opposed to irrealis future tenses that have distinct deontic, conditional, or epistemic modality. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh! It sounds so interesting! You know, it was my guess based on some of your comments, that you also take special interest in linguistics. Any more information? Links? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;19:54&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: The majority of the fruits of my labors in this particular arena are not to be found online, and that is for a reason- they are connected to what should eventually be a serialized novel roughly the size of "War and Peace" that I have yet to finish.  That said, we can exchange emails about some of the present details of this language- especially since talking in depth about this matter is not a topic that is suitable for this Wiki. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "War and Piece" size? Great, please don't forget to include your chapters on historical philosophy. :-)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Now, about e-mail exchange — this is the right idea. I don't mind at all. Let's do the following: really, let's set aside all further discussions here (except musical/mathematical/software topics potentially interesting to the Xenharmonic readers) and move them in private. More exactly: to start, will you look at [[User:SAKryukov#Profile_and_Contacts|my contact section on my main page]]. I reference two means of indirect mailing: via my site or xen.wiki). You can try both and decide what is more convenient for you. Then we'll have a further choice: to continue in any of these ways, or go further away from any of these sites, which would be even simpler. To do so, you may choose to share some real e-mail address, and then we will have more choices. First, I can send my real e-mail in response. I will ask you to keep it secret and address other people to my [[User:SAKryukov#Profile_and_Contacts|xen.wiki page]]. Also, I can invite you for a chat, which is more convenient than e-mail, but it would be better to use both chat and e-mail, depending on the purpose. Finally, I have a choice of chats I actively use: 1) I can create a channel on my Slack site, it is more convenient and mostly used for my discussions with musicians, 2) Skype, which is much less convenient, 3) I have some settings for an ad-hoc chat. Now, all chat channels I have are non-commercial, but they allow voice and video over IP (but only one facility has screen sharing). I have the applications, but on your side, you don't have to install anything, pure Web browser would suffice. I don't really like using video, but would not mind talking in voice. I really prefer char for small talks. Also, we can only try different channels and then decide. So, what do you think? Will you do it? If you will, the next step is yours. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;20:53&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Truth be told, there are a lot of elements concerning the historical philosophy that I'm keeping secret at this time, though perhaps we can talk about some of them during our discussion.  I did go to your contact section on your main page, and I decided to send an email via xen.wiki, and chances are we will likely continue our conversations among personal email exchanges.  I do intend to keep things secret as much as possible, but given the nature of technology, and the fact that I'm only now starting to get help on the actual novel from other people, some elements of our conversation may end up on Discord, though we will have to discuss which things we can allow to make their way to Discord and which things we need to keep under wraps. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: For the record, I have no intention of sharing your real email with other people, so no need to worry about that.  It's other things that I'm concerned about keeping secret on my end. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do understand it, no worries at all; I mentioned it just for keeping things proper. So, will you write to me? If you share your real e-mail in any of your communications, I'll surely keep it secret, naturally. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;21:16&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Frankly, as you could have noticed, I mentioned historical philosophy only to make a humorous reference to L. Tolstoy. (At school, many children make fun of Tolstoy, because these chapters are enormously big, so many consider them as inappropriate, but I've read them very carefully even at that time.) At the same time, somehow I'm not too surprised that you have something real on this topic. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;21:23&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I attempted to write to you by means of xen.wiki soon after I mentioned us emailing one another.  However, I'm now wondering if that email went through. You may need to check your email's files for junk, as the email I sent could have ended up there for some weird reason. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Not to worry, your message arrived just as expected, thank you. Now, do you want to go further and share your e-mail, or I can send a message in the same way first, share my e-mail, so we can communicate independently from this site, more conveniently? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;21:50&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Finally!  I was wondering when it would.  I think it would be better for you to respond to my message.  Given my experience exchanging emails with Xenwolf, I think it best that you actually respond to the message I sent.  Hopefully from there, I can respond and give you my actual email.  If not, we'll try another means of exchanging emails. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Done. Please give me the confirmation here, just for this first time. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;22:25&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I got your message, and I've sent a reply.  We should be good from there. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, everything looks fine. Thank you. You got my reply; no need to send confirmations anymore.
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::  I got a pleasant surprise: I tried to explain the pretty nasty Wiki styling bug with external links (at least for Vector I use), and Xenwolf kept saying that everything is fine, there was nothing to fix. But recently I found that the bug is fixed by someone. It feels nice! &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;23:46&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do however think I should mention that "Folly of a Drunk" sprang out of an early draft of one particular scene in my serialized novel, as do a number of my non-microtonal songs. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, interesting. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;20:27&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::: Also, only today I faced the problem with sound degraded with time, don't know how to reproduce; this problem was never exposed with the rest of the applications based on the same synthesis engine. That problem may take time... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;00:01&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::: I've noticed it too honestly. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::: Thank you for telling me. Okay, it's better to have the problem exposed than having wanna-be fine operation with a time bomb inside. This is troublesome, but I should fix it. For the pre-production, it is acceptable to expose the problem to the public. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;01:38&nbsp;UTC''
+::: I should also mention that the current link to my user page may eventually need to be changed to link to another page on this wiki- namely a page with my real name detailing what I'm known for in the future.  However, that day has not come yet- this is just something we may need to keep on the radar for the future. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::: I remember that. But this is the ideology of Wiki: as everyone can edit everything, if you change your URL and know someone references it, you can go to this person's page and fix it. I would invite you to do so when you change your URL. If you don't want to change it by yourself, just notify me. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:28&nbsp;UTC''
+: If you link to or cite my pages here on this wiki, we also need to take stock of the fact that the content of these pages is liable to change in the future.  Sorry I didn't say this right the first time. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
-=== Signing and timestamps ===
+=== 4.9.5 ===
-Hello SAKryukov, <br>
+V.&thinsp;4.9.5: Added mechanism of customization of user's tonal system in a separate file, refined user's error reporting.
-If you put <code><nowiki>&mdash; [[User:SAKryukov|SA]] ([[User talk:SAKryukov|talk]]),</nowiki></code> into the input line in the section Signature on [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal|your preferences]] and check the checkbox ''Treat signature as wikitext (without an automatic link)'' you configured the wiki software to replace four tildes <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> by it '''and''' the timestamp. (read about the special function of tildes in [[mw: Help:Signatures]]) --—[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 07:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
+The customization is shown on the sample [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/tree/master/docs/playground/custom-demo playground/custom-demo].
-: Your information is very useful &mdash; thank you very much. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]], 07:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
+This is how customization works:
-: There is one problem though: I want to get different signatures for different contexts &mdash; any ideas? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]], 07:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
-:: I think this could be possibly done by user scripts (a skin-independent solution should be placed into [[User:SAKryukov/common.js]]). But currently I cannot say exactly how.
+The user creates a new copy of the file [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/blob/master/docs/playground/user.data user.data] in some separate location. The application can start with this file if it is specified in the Web browser ''address line'' as a query parameter, for example:
-::: Well, I can tell you how. Yes, it's doable, but no fun and can be a good waste of time instead of gain. First, JavaScript executes code accessed through a Preferences text element, and it is executed on the server-side, I can see it by the JavaScript engine behavior &mdash; it is impossibly ancient. Not only this is boring, but also the server-side execution is questionable: what if some user mess up things badly? hope there is some reasonable protection... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 04:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+<code>...playground/index.html?custom-demo/customized.user.data</code>
-:: BTW: Since I have seen somewhere that you call yourself a perfectionist, I think you should take a closer look at the idea(s) behind the Wiki medium. It is not a book, it is not a forum and it is not a mixture of both. Without the claim to completeness, I would summarize my experiences like this today: The focus is on joint constructive work with the emphasis on content. (I think a good resource is a series of interviews with Wiki inventor Ward Cunningham on artima, I link the 5th and the last part here, because the TOC of the whole collection is only here available.) --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
+The path should be relative to “...playground/index.html”.
-::: Sorry, I forgot the link, here it is: [https://www.artima.com/intv/simplest.html The Simplest Thing that Could Possibly Work] --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
+For simplification, this address line could be placed in another custom file, an HTML file, such as the demo file “index.html” in  [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/tree/master/docs/playground/custom-demo playground/custom-demo]. In this case, the application can be started with the custom tonal system data in one click.
-:::: Got it, thank you &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 15:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
+Customization cannot work in [https://SAKryukov.GitHub.io/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/playground live demo]. Instead, the entire project should be [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard downloaded]. See the green button entitled “Code”. In the downloaded code, we only need its sub-directory “docs”, everything else can be deleted. (The weird directory name “docs” is related to the GitHub naming requirements for the content served by a product's Web site used for [https://SAKryukov.GitHub.io/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/playground live demo]. In fact, all the production code is in this directory).
-On [[User talk:SAKryukov/common.css]], I added a note about self links, did you read it? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 08:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+== Keyboards based on the designs by  Kite Giedraitis ==
-: Not yet, reading now, thank you for the note... Aha, well, I know all that, thank you. However, I would be grateful if you could point out the element or the class bearing the padding between the sidebar and its content — I'm lost in this nesting structure and poor signal-to-noise ratio of the code. If it's too boring, please never mind. My style does exactly what I want: 1) indicates the difference between un-logged and logged views, 2) gives me a pleasant look, 3) doesn't mangle anything. :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]] 08:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
+[[User talk:TallKite#Your tonal system on my microtonal platform|The discussion on this topic]] shall be moved to a separate [[User talk:SAKryukov/Keyboards based on the designs by Kite Giedraitis|sub-page]]
-=== Javascript ===
+== Reduce comma tables on EDO pages ==
-Per-user [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=User%3ASAKryukov&type=revision&diff=53202&oldid=53201 scripts] should be enabled in the wiki, but these are not restricted to pages but take effect on every page. Please read the details in [[mw: Manual:Interface/JavaScript #Personal scripts]]. (I'm not totally sure about it right now because we had a wiki upgrade from 1.31 to 1.35 in the last days.) --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 08:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
+Please have a look at [[Xenharmonic Wiki: Things to do #Comma tables in EDO_pages]]. Thanks --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
+: Looking... — thank you. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2021&nbsp;January&nbsp;12,&nbsp;21:23&nbsp;UTC''
-Thank you! It was just my test.
+== Microtonal Playground (Part 2) ==
-: That's what I thought 🙂. As I found out, user scripts are enabled. See [[User:Xenwolf/vector.js]] for a small example. I'm not sure if <code>let</code> is supported now (there was/is an issue) but <code>const</code> definitively is. <br> --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC) <br> <small>PS: signing - even on ''your'' user talk - would make things easier. And if you don't like the double hyphen, you may use <code>&amp;mdash;</code> or <code>—</code> as well, the magic starts only in the tildes. It's also possible to heavily customize you signature. <br> See [[mw: Help:Signatures #Customized signatures]] for a detailed description. <br> --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)</small>
+Hey, SA, it seems that the Microtonal playground has one problem, at least in the 12-edo version.  The "B" in the Mixolydian row should be renamed "B-Flat" to match the other instances of that same note in other rows.  Sorry about this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
-:: Thank you again! I've figured out and done it all. [[User talk:Xenwolf|On your talk page]], I created two questions under "Quick Question", and now one left, rather a very annoying CSS bug. Anything? [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
+: Thank you, that's correct. Fixed. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Saturday&nbsp;2021&nbsp;February&nbsp;20,&nbsp;17:05&nbsp;UTC''