User:Jbcristian/The Average Tuning System: Difference between revisions

Line 122:

You can attempt to correct this by equally limiting the number of digits, which would effectively reduce the number of individual distinct intervals. However, since truncation occurs in their decimal format, an uneven definition loss of musical notes is observed due to their original distribution, which is nonlinear (without repetitions).

The graph represents the tuning space horizontally and accumulates identical exact repetitions vertically. ~~The octave~~, the ~~highest peak~~, which ~~appears 4~~,~~379 times~~ in the ~~direct analysis and 72~~,~~146 times after computing all matrices, can be ignored for better displaying~~ the ~~rest~~.

The graph represents the tuning space horizontally and accumulates identical exact repetitions vertically.

[[File:Truncation comparision.jpg|thumb|Both graphics portray identical data, but the second one illustrates the data after truncation (with a maximum error of approximately 0.2 cents). Both visuals display the top 17 intervals, which remained consistent even after truncation. This reduction resulted in 242,538 unique intervals being compressed to just 9,997. The logarithmic view in the graphic also highlights the uneven definition loss of musical notes post-truncation, which was executed on the decimal data.]]

Progressively truncating the notes in this way, doesn't significantly alter popularity, even a 2-cent error proved insufficient to dislodge any peak prominence.

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 You can attempt to correct this by equally limiting the number of digits, which would effectively reduce the number of individual distinct intervals. However, since truncation occurs in their decimal format, an uneven definition loss of musical notes is observed due to their original distribution, which is nonlinear (without repetitions).
-The graph represents the tuning space horizontally and accumulates identical exact repetitions vertically. The octave, the highest peak, which appears 4,379 times in the direct analysis and 72,146 times after computing all matrices, can be ignored for better displaying the rest.
+The graph represents the tuning space horizontally and accumulates identical exact repetitions vertically.
+[[File:Truncation comparision.jpg|thumb|Both graphics portray identical data, but the second one illustrates the data after truncation (with a maximum error of approximately 0.2 cents). Both visuals display the top 17 intervals, which remained consistent even after truncation. This reduction resulted in 242,538 unique intervals being compressed to just 9,997. The logarithmic view in the graphic also highlights the uneven definition loss of musical notes post-truncation, which was executed on the decimal data.]]
 Progressively truncating the notes in this way, doesn't significantly alter popularity, even a 2-cent error proved insufficient to dislodge any peak prominence.