Talk:CET: Difference between revisions

Line 80:

:: Now, thinking of 1 division of something is inherently awkward, so this isn't a strict win such that I'd deprecate all the existing sequence stuff. But I do like how 1-divisions leverage the n-division structure that people are already familiar with, and it doesn't conflict with the sequences at all, so I'm certainly not against CompactStar's approach here. I think there's room for both, but I'd just like to see what the community prefers, and if sequences go by the wayside, I understand and accept. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Well I forgot to write my response to this yet again. I advocate for the 1edx format at least for just x, since it is the notation that is already in common use for [[1edo]] and [[1edt]] (we don't call 1edo 2/1-equal step tuning) and is also the notation supported by Infobox ET. But I am not entirely sure about this for cETs, for 88cET for example it has to be 1ed88\1200, 1ed88{{cent}} or even 150ed2048. I think those still may be beter than 88-cET though–I see 88cET (if T is temperament) as similar to saying 12-TET, it implies a temperament, but we need a different phrasure for the equivalent of saying 12edo where there is no temperament implied. And if 88cET has the T as tuning, then that brings up the issue of ET being commonly used to mean temperament that was mentioned earlier.

[[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 08:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 :: Now, thinking of 1 division of something is inherently awkward, so this isn't a strict win such that I'd deprecate all the existing sequence stuff. But I do like how 1-divisions leverage the n-division structure that people are already familiar with, and it doesn't conflict with the sequences at all, so I'm certainly not against CompactStar's approach here. I think there's room for both, but I'd just like to see what the community prefers, and if sequences go by the wayside, I understand and accept. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
+Well I forgot to write my response to this yet again. I advocate for the 1edx format at least for just x, since it is the notation that is already in common use for [[1edo]] and [[1edt]] (we don't call 1edo 2/1-equal step tuning) and is also the notation supported by Infobox ET. But I am not entirely sure about this for cETs, for 88cET for example it has to be 1ed88\1200,  1ed88{{cent}} or even 150ed2048. I think those still may be beter than 88-cET though–I see 88cET (if T is temperament) as similar to saying 12-TET, it implies a temperament, but we need a different phrasure for the equivalent of saying 12edo where there is no temperament implied. And if 88cET has the T as tuning, then that brings up the issue of ET being commonly used to mean temperament that was mentioned earlier.
+[[User:CompactStar|CompactStar]] ([[User talk:CompactStar|talk]]) 08:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)