Talk:IFDO: Difference between revisions

Line 435:

[[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 01:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

: Hi CompactStar. Yes, you've gathered correctly; that is a big part of what I'm saying: that my team's system is more accessible, while yours is capable of generalizing to unexplored theoretical territory. (The other biggest part is that due to historical and contemporary usage patterns, "ADO" is unacceptable in a tuning name system.) Now, I do like how you're thinking here, attempting to synthesize the strengths of our two systems. I had not really thought of trying something like this. But unfortunately, I don't think I would recommend we go with this particular suggestion of yours. I wish I liked it... I really don't want to come across as inflexible or overly negative here. My problem is this: there's just no direct association of these resources — frequency, pitch, and length — with those numbers — 1, 0, and -1. In other words, in order to understand why a E(0.5)DO referred to a tuning between an EFDO and an EDO, one would have to understand several things:

:# arithmetic/geometric/harmonic progressions in the first place,

:# and then understand the blue/red/yellow "diagonal" relationship between frequency/pitch/length and arithmetic/geometric/harmonic progressions (that I showed off in the tables above),

:# and then understand the relationship between such progressions and the associated means,

:# and then understand how those famous means with special names (arithmetic, geometric, harmonic) generalize as power means (where p = 1, 0, -1, respectively).

: So if we're going to discuss 0.5 tunings like this, I think we might as well use a more immediate and clear approach to it, as in the ... 2FDO, AFDO, (0.5)FDO, GFDO, (-0.5)FDO, IFDO, (-2)FDO ... continuum. If people are using this system already (i.e. your system, as revised according to my suggestions), then they should already know point #1, and possibly #3 too; it's really point #4 that's the interesting new thing. The key thing is they would never need to understand point #2. And this likens back to why I think our systems can coexist; because someone who thinks primarily in terms of frequency ratios like 7/6, 5/4, 3/1 etc. as well as in terms of these power means, well, they may potentially never have to learn anything about the "diagonal" relationship with pitch and string length (and vice versa, someone like me, for whom thinking about frequency, pitch, and length came naturally, would never have to learn about geometric and harmonic means, which indeed I had gotten away with my whole life without understanding, that is, of course, up until this whole issue came up earlier this year!) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 03:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 435: / Line 435: @@
 [[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 01:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
+: Hi CompactStar. Yes, you've gathered correctly; that is a big part of what I'm saying: that my team's system is more accessible, while yours is capable of generalizing to unexplored theoretical territory. (The other biggest part is that due to historical and contemporary usage patterns, "ADO" is unacceptable in a tuning name system.) Now, I do like how you're thinking here, attempting to synthesize the strengths of our two systems. I had not really thought of trying something like this. But unfortunately, I don't think I would recommend we go with this particular suggestion of yours. I wish I liked it... I really don't want to come across as inflexible or overly negative here. My problem is this: there's just no direct association of these resources — frequency, pitch, and length — with those numbers — 1, 0, and -1. In other words, in order to understand why a E(0.5)DO referred to a tuning between an EFDO and an EDO, one would have to understand several things:
+:# arithmetic/geometric/harmonic progressions in the first place,
+:# and then understand the blue/red/yellow "diagonal" relationship between frequency/pitch/length and arithmetic/geometric/harmonic progressions (that I showed off in the tables above),
+:# and then understand the relationship between such progressions and the associated means,
+:# and then understand how those famous means with special names (arithmetic, geometric, harmonic) generalize as power means (where p = 1, 0, -1, respectively).
+: So if we're going to discuss 0.5 tunings like this, I think we might as well use a more immediate and clear approach to it, as in the ... 2FDO, AFDO, (0.5)FDO, GFDO, (-0.5)FDO, IFDO, (-2)FDO ... continuum. If people are using this system already (i.e. your system, as revised according to my suggestions), then they should already know point #1, and possibly #3 too; it's really point #4 that's the interesting new thing. The key thing is they would never need to understand point #2. And this likens back to why I think our systems can coexist; because someone who thinks primarily in terms of frequency ratios like 7/6, 5/4, 3/1 etc. as well as in terms of these power means, well, they may potentially never have to learn anything about the "diagonal" relationship with pitch and string length (and vice versa, someone like me, for whom thinking about frequency, pitch, and length came naturally, would never have to learn about geometric and harmonic means, which indeed I had gotten away with my whole life without understanding, that is, of course, up until this whole issue came up earlier this year!) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 03:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)