Talk:Meantone family: Difference between revisions

Line 212:

::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

:::: > Looks like your names are determined on the mapping of the last primes, which I'm not getting the point of. The mapping of 7 is the more distinguishing feature of these temps and that's like the whole point of putting them into a temp family.

:::: Nowhere did I say that I had any proposals for renaming the 19-limit temperaments themselves. I named the individual mappings to the higher primes; those are not temperament names.

:::: > meanenneadecal vs vincenzo

:::: I think the logic behind vincenzo is essentially to use the septimal meantone mapping of 7 and flattone mappings for 11 and 13, and I think that's a pretty reasonable way to construct an 11-limit temp and a 13-limit temp. For the same reasons, I think meanplop, using the overcomplicated meanpop mapping of 11, for the sake of essentially no gain in being supported by edos other than 19, is worse than vincenzo which uses the flattone mapping of 11.

:::: > meanpoid vs meanpoppic

:::: Meanpoid doesn't work "from 19 to 31", it works ''in'' 19 and 31 exclusively. I think of 50edo as the standard meanpop edo, and the extension supported by 50edo is meanpoppic. As Lucius observed, there is a range between 19edo and 50edo. That range does not support septimal meantone. "19 & 31" as an edojoin is worth preserving, I suppose, though. That makes sense as an argument to keep meanpoid.

:::: > meridetone

:::: Meridetone ''is'' the counterpart of grosstone across 43edo, but its join is 43 & 55de. Again, as Lucius said, sharp of 43edo is outside the septimal meantone range. So I'd concede a point here, though I still think that sauveuric is the best meridetone extension. Note however that 19-limit meridetonic follows what I've called the "mediantone" extension to 17 and 19; however that extension is specifically 74 & 43 (supported by 117d), and due to its sheer complexity should serve nowhere else other than grosstone. I'd suggest "meridian" as a name for this 19-limit grosstone extension.

:::: For further elaboration on grosstone extensions: ⟨0 1 4 10 18 -16 -5 -3] (31 & 43) is the current canonical 19-limit grosstone. However it is not supported by the optimal grosstone edos (74, 105, and 117d). My suggestion above was the inclusion of two alternate 19-limit extensions, based on 19-limit didacus extensions, that are quite complex but supported by 74edo. These are ⟨0 1 4 10 18 -16 38 40] (74 & 43) "meridian" and ⟨0 1 4 10 18 -16 -36 -34] (31 & 74) "name TBD". However, due to their complexity and lack of coverage of the whole 31-to-43 range, I suggest neither of these should be canonical. Either the current 19-limit grosstone should remain canonical, or none of these three should be. In the latter case we could call 31 & 43 "grosstonian" and 31 & 74 "grosstonic", or something along those lines.

:::: > The 19-limit extensions of meridetone aren't worth preserving if the 19-limit extensions of tridecimal meantone are removed

:::: I think all the temps that remain here should be 19-limit. If we keep 13-limit huygens around, we should keep 19-limit huygens around.

:::: > Finally, you didn't mention dominant.

:::: I haven't looked into dominant extensions at all so I'll give myself no say in this. I feel dominant has way too many extensions for an exotemp (whose only reasonable tuning is 12edo, tbh) though. --[[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 17:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 212: / Line 212: @@
 ::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
+:::: > Looks like your names are determined on the mapping of the last primes, which I'm not getting the point of. The mapping of 7 is the more distinguishing feature of these temps and that's like the whole point of putting them into a temp family.
+:::: Nowhere did I say that I had any proposals for renaming the 19-limit temperaments themselves. I named the individual mappings to the higher primes; those are not temperament names.
+:::: > meanenneadecal vs vincenzo
+:::: I think the logic behind vincenzo is essentially to use the septimal meantone mapping of 7 and flattone mappings for 11 and 13, and I think that's a pretty reasonable way to construct an 11-limit temp and a 13-limit temp. For the same reasons, I think meanplop, using the overcomplicated meanpop mapping of 11, for the sake of essentially no gain in being supported by edos other than 19, is worse than vincenzo which uses the flattone mapping of 11.
+:::: > meanpoid vs meanpoppic
+:::: Meanpoid doesn't work "from 19 to 31", it works ''in'' 19 and 31 exclusively. I think of 50edo as the standard meanpop edo, and the extension supported by 50edo is meanpoppic. As Lucius observed, there is a range between 19edo and 50edo. That range does not support septimal meantone. "19 & 31" as an edojoin is worth preserving, I suppose, though. That makes sense as an argument to keep meanpoid.
+:::: > meridetone
+:::: Meridetone ''is'' the counterpart of grosstone across 43edo, but its join is 43 & 55de. Again, as Lucius said, sharp of 43edo is outside the septimal meantone range. So I'd concede a point here, though I still think that sauveuric is the best meridetone extension. Note however that 19-limit meridetonic follows what I've called the "mediantone" extension to 17 and 19; however that extension is specifically 74 & 43 (supported by 117d), and due to its sheer complexity should serve nowhere else other than grosstone. I'd suggest "meridian" as a name for this 19-limit grosstone extension.
+:::: For further elaboration on grosstone extensions: ⟨0 1 4 10 18 -16 -5 -3] (31 & 43) is the current canonical 19-limit grosstone. However it is not supported by the optimal grosstone edos (74, 105, and 117d). My suggestion above was the inclusion of two alternate 19-limit extensions, based on 19-limit didacus extensions, that are quite complex but supported by 74edo. These are ⟨0 1 4 10 18 -16 38 40] (74 & 43) "meridian" and ⟨0 1 4 10 18 -16 -36 -34] (31 & 74) "name TBD". However, due to their complexity and lack of coverage of the whole 31-to-43 range, I suggest neither of these should be canonical. Either the current 19-limit grosstone should remain canonical, or none of these three should be. In the latter case we could call 31 & 43 "grosstonian" and 31 & 74 "grosstonic", or something along those lines.
+:::: > The 19-limit extensions of meridetone aren't worth preserving if the 19-limit extensions of tridecimal meantone are removed
+:::: I think all the temps that remain here should be 19-limit. If we keep 13-limit huygens around, we should keep 19-limit huygens around.
+:::: > Finally, you didn't mention dominant.
+:::: I haven't looked into dominant extensions at all so I'll give myself no say in this. I feel dominant has way too many extensions for an exotemp (whose only reasonable tuning is 12edo, tbh) though. --[[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 17:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)