Talk:Meantone family: Difference between revisions

Line 293:

:::::::: For the record, the extension in question maps 7/4 to C-G𝄪𝄪(*) (fifthspan +29), so it is a way-augmented fifth, not just a fifth.

:::::::: [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 17:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: That's acceptable overall. So to be clear, the extensions we seem to be in agreement on getting rid of would be: meantonic, meridetonic (make sauveuric the canonical 19-limit meridetone), meanplop, meanundec, and meanundeci (along with 13-limit extensions of domineering and arnold), and we'd want to document 31 & 74, 74 & 43, possibly 19 & 50, along with Lucius's extensions. That still leaves the question of nomenclature. I don't believe that "meantone" should be canonical beyond the 11-limit, since huygens and meanpop are about as good as each other. I *do* think that grosstone should be canonical with respect to huygens though, at least to the 13-limit. (I also don't really like the name "grosstone", honestly.)

:::::::: So one proposal would be to recycle "meantonic" for what's currently tridecimal meantone and 17-19-limit "huygens". Currently, the "meantonic" extension seems to be mentioned, outside of the "Meantone family" page and discussion directly pertaining, solely on the [[17/16 (Korean)|Korean article for 17/16]], so I don't think this proposal is very demanding. Then we can call grosstone, at least unto the 13-limit, "tridecimal huygens". I'm not sure whether I'd want canonicity to continue after that to the 19-limit, so we can keep "grosstone" as the name for 31 & 43 in the 17- and 19-limits.

:::::::: We also should maybe address hemimeantone, semimeantone, and bimeantone. I think the issue with most of these extensions is that they're best treated outside of the hierarchy of prime limits (trimean definitely is, since no-sevens superpine is more natural compared to either of its extensions to prime 7), but other than that I'm not sure of the redundancy of any of them. --[[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 22:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 293: / Line 293: @@
 :::::::: For the record, the extension in question maps 7/4 to C-G𝄪𝄪(*) (fifthspan +29), so it is a way-augmented fifth, not just a fifth.
 :::::::: [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 17:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
+:::::::: That's acceptable overall. So to be clear, the extensions we seem to be in agreement on getting rid of would be: meantonic, meridetonic (make sauveuric the canonical 19-limit meridetone), meanplop, meanundec, and meanundeci (along with 13-limit extensions of domineering and arnold), and we'd want to document 31 & 74, 74 & 43, possibly 19 & 50, along with Lucius's extensions. That still leaves the question of nomenclature. I don't believe that "meantone" should be canonical beyond the 11-limit, since huygens and meanpop are about as good as each other. I *do* think that grosstone should be canonical with respect to huygens though, at least to the 13-limit. (I also don't really like the name "grosstone", honestly.)
+:::::::: So one proposal would be to recycle "meantonic" for what's currently tridecimal meantone and 17-19-limit "huygens". Currently, the "meantonic" extension seems to be mentioned, outside of the "Meantone family" page and discussion directly pertaining, solely on the [[17/16 (Korean)|Korean article for 17/16]], so I don't think this proposal is very demanding. Then we can call grosstone, at least unto the 13-limit, "tridecimal huygens". I'm not sure whether I'd want canonicity to continue after that to the 19-limit, so we can keep "grosstone" as the name for 31 & 43 in the 17- and 19-limits.
+:::::::: We also should maybe address hemimeantone, semimeantone, and bimeantone. I think the issue with most of these extensions is that they're best treated outside of the hierarchy of prime limits (trimean definitely is, since no-sevens superpine is more natural compared to either of its extensions to prime 7), but other than that I'm not sure of the redundancy of any of them. --[[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 22:59, 26 August 2025 (UTC)