Talk:Constrained tuning: Difference between revisions
→CTWE, CWE, KE, etc: Hahn norm |
KE = CWE |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
I do agree KE would make the most sense as constrained octave. In the recent discussions we've been having, I've been referring to the constrained octave version. I'd like to see if both/either of these results are similar to POTE. [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 02:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC) | I do agree KE would make the most sense as constrained octave. In the recent discussions we've been having, I've been referring to the constrained octave version. I'd like to see if both/either of these results are similar to POTE. [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 02:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC) | ||
: I've gone back through my notes and I am pretty sure the most common usage of "Kees-Euclidean tuning" is the constrained-optimization version. Actually, it looks like Graham had independently invented it a year or two before I did, which I hadn't realized, and he also called it constrained-optimization. I don't remember why I was calling the destretched WE tuning the KE tuning in that Facebook thread. But anyway, yes, KE = CWE. [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 05:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
== CTWE, CWE, KE, etc == | == CTWE, CWE, KE, etc == | ||