Xenharmonic Wiki:Cross-platform dialogue: Difference between revisions
→Mike's Response to All This: re (suggest 1 standard tuning + collapsible box for extras) |
reply to fredg |
||
| Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
: 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) | :: 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) | ||
::: Showing a single standard tuning by default has the issue of which though. If they're on board with KE (if we can show that it's practically almost always very close to POTE) then that's not an issue, but otherwise I presume it means that they'd want it to be POTE; I would object to POTE being the standard tuning to show (as opposed to, say, KE) just as they object to CTE. In such a case it seems better to just show a few tunings side-by-side and let the reader make their own judgement. The values given are only meant to be a starting point anyways (for if one doesn't want to use an EDO tuning). --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 03:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC) | |||