Talk:Meantone family: Difference between revisions

Line 300:

:::::::: 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)

::::::::: Hmm, my only minor issue is 13-limit grosstone's canonicity w.r.t. 11-limit huygens. I have my own doubts here, and as I showed you in the archive, at least two ppl believed it was actually inferior to the current 13-limit meantone for one reason or another. Meanwhile, I do think the current 17- and 19-limit grosstone are good enough to be virtual canon w.r.t. 13-limit grosstone so I might call it ''grosstonic'' (cf. ''miraculous'' and ''miracle''). So these all point to not changing 13-limit grosstone itself. (Renaming it to something completely different is another topic.)

::::::::: I don't see a problem with hemimeantone, semimeantone, or bimeantone. They are 43 & 62, 62 & 74, and 38df & 50, respectively, which all look reasonable as they are. The 50 & 62 temp is even missing, which we may call semimeanpop. Trimean is 43 & 50 and superpine is 36 & 43. The 2.3.5.11.13 part are the same and 43edo is the turning point for primes 7, 17, and 19. I see that the 2.3.5.11.13-subgroup temp is already documented in the No-sevens subgroup temperaments page. Does that mean the 7-limit-based entries should be removed from this page? Idk.

::::::::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 300: / Line 300: @@
 :::::::: 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)
+::::::::: Hmm, my only minor issue is 13-limit grosstone's canonicity w.r.t. 11-limit huygens. I have my own doubts here, and as I showed you in the archive, at least two ppl believed it was actually inferior to the current 13-limit meantone for one reason or another. Meanwhile, I do think the current 17- and 19-limit grosstone are good enough to be virtual canon w.r.t. 13-limit grosstone so I might call it ''grosstonic'' (cf. ''miraculous'' and ''miracle''). So these all point to not changing 13-limit grosstone itself. (Renaming it to something completely different is another topic.)
+::::::::: I don't see a problem with hemimeantone, semimeantone, or bimeantone. They are 43 & 62, 62 & 74, and 38df & 50, respectively, which all look reasonable as they are. The 50 & 62 temp is even missing, which we may call semimeanpop. Trimean is 43 & 50 and superpine is 36 & 43. The 2.3.5.11.13 part are the same and 43edo is the turning point for primes 7, 17, and 19. I see that the 2.3.5.11.13-subgroup temp is already documented in the No-sevens subgroup temperaments page. Does that mean the 7-limit-based entries should be removed from this page? Idk.
+::::::::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)