User talk:Cmloegcmluin/APS: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) |
→Vagueness in the spec: new section |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: Great catch. The intention was that they are finite and aperiodic when ''n'' is provided. So they are only equivalent to a single period of a EPD. I have corrected accordingly (and the similar statements on the ALS and AFS pages). Thank you. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | : Great catch. The intention was that they are finite and aperiodic when ''n'' is provided. So they are only equivalent to a single period of a EPD. I have corrected accordingly (and the similar statements on the ALS and AFS pages). Thank you. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Vagueness in the spec == | |||
> "The pitch of the ''k''-th step of an APS-''p'' is quite simply ''k''⋅''p''." | |||
That implies ''p'' must be a ''pitch relation'' (i.e. log-frequency relation), such as cents or octaves. | |||
> ''n''-EPD-''p'' = APS(''p''/''n'') | |||
That is also true only if ''p'' is a pitch relation. I've tried to clarify this matter in the lastest changes. | |||
However, in "APS⁴√2" and "APS1.189" the numbers are frequency ratios. Using pitches it should be APS(300 ¢), APS(1/4 oct), or APS(1\4). I think there are two ways to specify the tuning, one by frequency ratio, the other by pitch relations. It can work without confusion, cuz obviously frequency ratio is dimensionless, whereas pitch relations never go without a unit. | |||
[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC) | |||