User:BudjarnLambeth/The intervals I see as important: Difference between revisions
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
Any ''general-purpose'' tuning system should approximate all hyperconsonances within 10 cents or less, all consonances within 20 cents, and all ambisonances within 30 cents. It should also try to have as few notes as possible that do not approximate any of those three categories of interval, because every note that isn't approximating one of them is a wolf interval that adds a 'bitter' taste to the tuning, and a tuning cannot survive very much bitterness. | Any ''general-purpose'' tuning system should approximate all hyperconsonances within 10 cents or less, all consonances within 20 cents, and all ambisonances within 30 cents. It should also try to have as few notes as possible that do not approximate any of those three categories of interval, because every note that isn't approximating one of them is a wolf interval that adds a 'bitter' taste to the tuning, and a tuning cannot survive very much bitterness. | ||
== | == Table of EDOs by general-purpose efficacy (1–53edo) == | ||
Table created using Claude (I gave it a PDF of the EDO harmonic tables | This rates EDOs for ''general'' purposes. It doesn't take into account specialist (but still very valid) use cases like inharmonic timbres, dual-fifths usage, subgroup usage, or taking carefully chosen subsets (eg blackjack). EDOs that look bad on this table might still be very good for one or more of those specialist uses. | ||
Table created using Claude (I gave it a PDF of the EDO harmonic tables; my prompt is listed below the table). | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center; font-size:80%;" | {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center; font-size:80%;" | ||