Talk:EDO vs ET: Difference between revisions

Line 20:

--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

: I'd first like to point out that a historical note would also help clarify this page. For several centuries, "equal temperaments" were not conceived as regular temperaments like we do today, and it is likely that still many people use ET to designate a concrete tuning. Similarly, I realize that the article suddenly jumps in with RTT notation in the middle of what looks like a layman's explanation. I wouldn't expect everyone reading this page to be familiar with RTT, let alone temperament maps. This is the sort of issues that need to be fix if we don't want to scare away people who are less familiar with relatively advanced math.

: I agree that the different "layers" of EDOs and ETs should be laid out more carefully in this article. The RTT point of view certainly helps, although it's good to keep in mind that RTT didn't invent everything. For instance, in the lead section, I would mention that the modern usage of n-ET implies a regular temperament, with a link to the relevant article, leaving the reader to check it out if they don't know about it already, and giving a hint about the way the article will be developed.

: RTT distinguishes "temperament map" and "tuning map". An abstract ET only has information on the temperament map (defaulting to the simple map), while a concrete ET also assumes a tuning map. On the other hand, an EDO only has information on the tuning map (defaulting to a generator of 1200{{cent}}/n), even though calling it a tuning map is a bit of a stretch. From there, I believe these are the two key concepts that should be used to explain in more detail the points you raised: stretched/compressed octaves, relation to JI (or other pitch set to be approximated), rounding (or direct mapping) vs. regular mapping, the existence of multiple ETs for each EDO, the ambiguity contained in statements like "n-EDO supports", and so on. I don't think the lead section should mention all of these topics, but it should at least summarize why the concepts are similar and why they are distinct (which is already what the page does, but I think it could be improved).

: To summarize, this page should do its best to answer the question "what is the difference between an EDO and an ET" without needlessly repeating what's already on the other pages (by referencing these pages instead) while bringing a sense of progression that goes from general to specific. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

== "Supports" ==

Line 30:

Line 35:

--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

: Following by reply to the topic above, I think this can be explained by the two kinds of map; an ET implies a particular temperament map, while an EDO doesn't, so it's ambiguous for EDO (unless everyone agrees to assume patent val, but I'd rather say it's ambiguous). I agree that the so-called "debate" doesn't really make sense if you look at the definitions properly. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
+: I'd first like to point out that a historical note would also help clarify this page. For several centuries, "equal temperaments" were not conceived as regular temperaments like we do today, and it is likely that still many people use ET to designate a concrete tuning. Similarly, I realize that the article suddenly jumps in with RTT notation in the middle of what looks like a layman's explanation. I wouldn't expect everyone reading this page to be familiar with RTT, let alone temperament maps. This is the sort of issues that need to be fix if we don't want to scare away people who are less familiar with relatively advanced math.
+: I agree that the different "layers" of EDOs and ETs should be laid out more carefully in this article. The RTT point of view certainly helps, although it's good to keep in mind that RTT didn't invent everything. For instance, in the lead section, I would mention that the modern usage of n-ET implies a regular temperament, with a link to the relevant article, leaving the reader to check it out if they don't know about it already, and giving a hint about the way the article will be developed.
+: RTT distinguishes "temperament map" and "tuning map". An abstract ET only has information on the temperament map (defaulting to the simple map), while a concrete ET also assumes a tuning map. On the other hand, an EDO only has information on the tuning map (defaulting to a generator of 1200{{cent}}/n), even though calling it a tuning map is a bit of a stretch. From there, I believe these are the two key concepts that should be used to explain in more detail the points you raised: stretched/compressed octaves, relation to JI (or other pitch set to be approximated), rounding (or direct mapping) vs. regular mapping, the existence of multiple ETs for each EDO, the ambiguity contained in statements like "n-EDO supports", and so on. I don't think the lead section should mention all of these topics, but it should at least summarize why the concepts are similar and why they are distinct (which is already what the page does, but I think it could be improved).
+: To summarize, this page should do its best to answer the question "what is the difference between an EDO and an ET" without needlessly repeating what's already on the other pages (by referencing these pages instead) while bringing a sense of progression that goes from general to specific. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 == "Supports" ==
@@ Line 30: / Line 35: @@
 --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
+: Following by reply to the topic above, I think this can be explained by the two kinds of map; an ET implies a particular temperament map, while an EDO doesn't, so it's ambiguous for EDO (unless everyone agrees to assume patent val, but I'd rather say it's ambiguous). I agree that the so-called "debate" doesn't really make sense if you look at the definitions properly. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 20:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)