Talk:POTE tuning: Difference between revisions

Line 65:

:: Are there any temperaments in particular where you prefer the POTE tuning to the CTE tuning? We can also compare with the tunings from [[Path-based goodness]]. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 19:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

::: There's a thing. I haven't spent the past 25 years comparing different octave-equivalent tunings. I'll note that a lot of my reasons aren't to do with the sound of POTE in isolation. I think TE is the best tuning in the TE family and POTE works as a supplement to it. I happen to have a guitar fretted to 11-limit POTE magic, but the TE octave is only 0.14 cents sharp so I don't expect CTE would come out much different. I do find it useful to click the "POTE" link in my app so that I can see how the odd-prime errors compare with that small octave tempering removed. There are examples on the [[Constrained_tuning|CTE]] page that are best discussed there. As you asked here, I'll say that with meantone it doesn't '''look''' right to tune the 7 sharp when it's better to balance the 7 and 5 (even disregarding 5:3) but I don't think it'll make much difference in practice. The Blackwood example also '''looks''' like it's giving too much error to the 5:3 but I haven't tuned it up to try. I also think it's bad that the 5 gets tuned just. I think one of the advantages of TE and other RMS optimizations over TOP is that none of the intervals, including octaves, are tuned pure and so have phase locking. It's best to spread the errors around. But in this case it turns out that the TE tuning does leave 5:1 just anyway. I'll also mention the classic example of 5-limit 19EDO where POTE doesn't apply, but it shows a weakness of metrics that only consider the absolute errors of the odd primes. I think (and this used to be a community consensus) that 19EDO is better than it looks in lists that don't consider the error in the minor third. --[[User:X31eq|X31eq]] ([[User talk:X31eq|talk]]) 19:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:23, 10 July 2025 view source X31eq (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 39 edits Question about projective space ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 19:57, 10 July 2025 view source X31eq (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 39 edits Preferences
Line 65:		Line 65:

	:: Are there any temperaments in particular where you prefer the POTE tuning to the CTE tuning? We can also compare with the tunings from [[Path-based goodness]]. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 19:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)		:: Are there any temperaments in particular where you prefer the POTE tuning to the CTE tuning? We can also compare with the tunings from [[Path-based goodness]]. --[[User:Hkm\|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm\|talk]]) 19:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
			::: There's a thing. I haven't spent the past 25 years comparing different octave-equivalent tunings. I'll note that a lot of my reasons aren't to do with the sound of POTE in isolation. I think TE is the best tuning in the TE family and POTE works as a supplement to it. I happen to have a guitar fretted to 11-limit POTE magic, but the TE octave is only 0.14 cents sharp so I don't expect CTE would come out much different. I do find it useful to click the "POTE" link in my app so that I can see how the odd-prime errors compare with that small octave tempering removed. There are examples on the [[Constrained_tuning\|CTE]] page that are best discussed there. As you asked here, I'll say that with meantone it doesn't '''look''' right to tune the 7 sharp when it's better to balance the 7 and 5 (even disregarding 5:3) but I don't think it'll make much difference in practice. The Blackwood example also '''looks''' like it's giving too much error to the 5:3 but I haven't tuned it up to try. I also think it's bad that the 5 gets tuned just. I think one of the advantages of TE and other RMS optimizations over TOP is that none of the intervals, including octaves, are tuned pure and so have phase locking. It's best to spread the errors around. But in this case it turns out that the TE tuning does leave 5:1 just anyway. I'll also mention the classic example of 5-limit 19EDO where POTE doesn't apply, but it shows a weakness of metrics that only consider the absolute errors of the odd primes. I think (and this used to be a community consensus) that 19EDO is better than it looks in lists that don't consider the error in the minor third. --[[User:X31eq\|X31eq]] ([[User talk:X31eq\|talk]]) 19:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)