Xenharmonic Wiki:Cross-platform dialogue: Difference between revisions

Line 159:

There are other reasons. Graham has expressed interest in it being the unique pure-octave tuning that minimizes the angle/dot product with the JIP. I don't remember what musical interpretation he gave to this angle; you'd have to ask him why. And there is always this "black magic" element to it where Gene knew a bunch of stuff about all of this, but has sadly passed on and we can't ask him about it. We have the same situation with, for instance, zeta integral and gap tunings - what theoretical justification do these things have, compared with something clear like zeta peak tunings? I don't know, but Gene did. Oh well.

: I have idiosyncratic reasons to favor CTE or a tuning that doesn't prioritize divisive ratios over multiplicative ratios based on where beating occurs in the frequency spectrum with any harmonic timbre. I documented the details in my essay (→ ''User:FloraC/Hard problems of harmony and psychoacoustically supported optimization''). The essay also contains a design around Hahn distance so you might be interested. Regardless, as I've related to you on FB, I think of CTE as the most straight-forward solution that is most likely to be understood by the widest audience, so the main appeal is its methodological transparency, which is somewhat shared by KE and is in contrast with the "black magic" of POTE.

: My next plan is to add KE to later temperaments that never had POTE documented (and CTE is also to be added). [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

[[Category:Xenharmonic Wiki]]

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 There are other reasons. Graham has expressed interest in it being the unique pure-octave tuning that minimizes the angle/dot product with the JIP. I don't remember what musical interpretation he gave to this angle; you'd have to ask him why. And there is always this "black magic" element to it where Gene knew a bunch of stuff about all of this, but has sadly passed on and we can't ask him about it. We have the same situation with, for instance, zeta integral and gap tunings - what theoretical justification do these things have, compared with something clear like zeta peak tunings? I don't know, but Gene did. Oh well.
+: I have idiosyncratic reasons to favor CTE or a tuning that doesn't prioritize divisive ratios over multiplicative ratios based on where beating occurs in the frequency spectrum with any harmonic timbre. I documented the details in my essay (→ ''User:FloraC/Hard problems of harmony and psychoacoustically supported optimization''). The essay also contains a design around Hahn distance so you might be interested. Regardless, as I've related to you on FB, I think of CTE as the most straight-forward solution that is most likely to be understood by the widest audience, so the main appeal is its methodological transparency, which is somewhat shared by KE and is in contrast with the "black magic" of POTE.
+: My next plan is to add KE to later temperaments that never had POTE documented (and CTE is also to be added). [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 [[Category:Xenharmonic Wiki]]