POTE tuning: Difference between revisions
Weaknesses |
m Caveat about "simplest" |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Motivation == | == Motivation == | ||
POTE is the same as TE in the limit of very small intervals. This means it is most similar to TE for intervals smaller than an octave, and most divergent for intervals of several octaves. As a tuning for the full audible range, the logic is that smaller intervals are more common in chords and so more important to optimize for. There are other ways to do this. POTE is the simplest. | POTE is the same as TE in the limit of very small intervals. This means it is most similar to TE for intervals smaller than an octave, and most divergent for intervals of several octaves. As a tuning for the full audible range, the logic is that smaller intervals are more common in chords and so more important to optimize for. There are other ways to do this. POTE is the simplest way of prioritizing smaller intervals. | ||
POTE can stand in for TE where a pure-octave tuning is convenient for implementation constraints, like when a synthesizer has pure octave tuning tables. POTE is close to TE for melodic steps, so melodies can be translated between POTE and TE with minimal damage. | POTE can stand in for TE where a pure-octave tuning is convenient for implementation constraints, like when a synthesizer has pure octave tuning tables. POTE is close to TE for melodic steps, so melodies can be translated between POTE and TE with minimal damage. | ||