User:BudjarnLambeth/Bird’s eye view of rank-2 temperaments: Difference between revisions
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
And they might argue that 25 notes per [[equave]] is the most that is practical, any more than that is too cumbersome. | And they might argue that 25 notes per [[equave]] is the most that is practical, any more than that is too cumbersome. | ||
They might argue that nobody can hear the harmonic effect of prime harmonics higher than 11. | They might argue that nobody can hear the harmonic effect of [[prime harmonics]] higher than 11. | ||
And they might argue that there's no real reason to use | And they might argue that there's no real reason to use [[subgroup]]s that are missing primes 2 or 3, because those primes are so important to consonance. | ||
'''Xenharmonicist B''' might argue that the error must be less than 5ish cents on most intervals, anything further out than that sounds out of tune to them. | '''Xenharmonicist B''' might argue that the error must be less than 5ish cents on most intervals, anything further out than that sounds out of tune to them. | ||
They might argue that it's perfectly possible to learn up to 50 notes per | They might argue that it's perfectly possible to learn up to 50 notes per equave. | ||
They might argue that they can hear the subtle, delicate effect of prime harmonics up to 23. | They might argue that they can hear the subtle, delicate effect of prime harmonics up to 23. | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
Alternatively, it can be interpreted as a high-accuracy 2.3.17.19 subgroup temperament, where all of the intervals have an error less than 5 cents. | Alternatively, it can be interpreted as a high-accuracy 2.3.17.19 subgroup temperament, where all of the intervals have an error less than 5 cents. | ||
So that should provide a point of comparison to | So that should provide a helpful point of comparison to measure these other temperaments against. | ||
== How to read the table == | == How to read the table == | ||