Xenharmonic Wiki:Cross-platform dialogue: Difference between revisions

Line 180:

: FWIW, that's essentially what I was trying to say in my comment starting with "KE tuning seems acceptable to me" (although I don't understand the specifics enough to argue it more strongly). I don't mind the other solution of listing CTE, POTE and TE together though if that will cause less friction going forwards, although I still think that due to POTE's trivial derivability from TE it seems redundant/unnecessary to list, but I guess dividing the cent values by the ratio between the tempered octave and pure octave (even though trivially easy) is enough of a hassle for anyone who really wants POTE specifically to justify listing it. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

:: So far, my suggestion is to have a single standard optimal tuning displayed in any given temperament data block, and optionally append a collapsible box containing more "optimal tunings" for various optimization methods. These would serve as quick references for people who do not wish to use a calculator, namely if one wants to compare similar temperaments at a glance. These tunings can most likely be computed dynamically if we have the right modules, but they could also just be manually inserted if need be. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:40, 18 March 2024 view source Godtone (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled 2,289 edits m reply to sintel ← Older edit		Revision as of 03:01, 18 March 2024 view source Fredg999 (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Interface administrators, Sysops 6,129 edits →Mike's Response to All This: re (suggest 1 standard tuning + collapsible box for extras) Newer edit →
Line 180:		Line 180:

	: FWIW, that's essentially what I was trying to say in my comment starting with "KE tuning seems acceptable to me" (although I don't understand the specifics enough to argue it more strongly). I don't mind the other solution of listing CTE, POTE and TE together though if that will cause less friction going forwards, although I still think that due to POTE's trivial derivability from TE it seems redundant/unnecessary to list, but I guess dividing the cent values by the ratio between the tempered octave and pure octave (even though trivially easy) is enough of a hassle for anyone who really wants POTE specifically to justify listing it. --[[User:Godtone\|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone\|talk]]) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)		: FWIW, that's essentially what I was trying to say in my comment starting with "KE tuning seems acceptable to me" (although I don't understand the specifics enough to argue it more strongly). I don't mind the other solution of listing CTE, POTE and TE together though if that will cause less friction going forwards, although I still think that due to POTE's trivial derivability from TE it seems redundant/unnecessary to list, but I guess dividing the cent values by the ratio between the tempered octave and pure octave (even though trivially easy) is enough of a hassle for anyone who really wants POTE specifically to justify listing it. --[[User:Godtone\|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone\|talk]]) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
			:: So far, my suggestion is to have a single standard optimal tuning displayed in any given temperament data block, and optionally append a collapsible box containing more "optimal tunings" for various optimization methods. These would serve as quick references for people who do not wish to use a calculator, namely if one wants to compare similar temperaments at a glance. These tunings can most likely be computed dynamically if we have the right modules, but they could also just be manually inserted if need be. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 03:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)