Talk:Meantone family: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 263: | Line 263: | ||
:::::: > Therefore, I think we should document three noncanonical temps: 19 & 50, 50 & 31, and 19 & 31. The situation is comparable to the grosstone range you analysed next, which I like and appreciate. | :::::: > Therefore, I think we should document three noncanonical temps: 19 & 50, 50 & 31, and 19 & 31. The situation is comparable to the grosstone range you analysed next, which I like and appreciate. | ||
:::::: That's something to consider, though as I said, 19 & 50 doesn't really work with the septimal meantone mapping of 7, so I don't believe it's worth adding 19 & 50 to the meanpop extensions. I think keeping 19 & 31 and 50 & 31 makes sense though. | :::::: That's something to consider, though as I said, 19 & 50 doesn't really work with the septimal meantone mapping of 7 ([[Talk:Meantone#Unlisted(?) strong 7-limit Meantone extension (maybe related to Catasyc or Laruquadbiyoti?)|per Lucius]], so I don't believe it's worth adding 19 & 50 to the meanpop extensions. I think keeping 19 & 31 and 50 & 31 makes sense though. | ||
:::::: > > meanenneadecal vs vincenzo | :::::: > > meanenneadecal vs vincenzo | ||
| Line 271: | Line 271: | ||
:::::: > dominant | :::::: > dominant | ||
:::::: Fine with that proposal. --[[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 16: | :::::: Fine with that proposal. --[[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 16:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC) | ||