User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

Line 33:

::::::::: Oh, yes, I already mentioned that I cannot even imagine dealing with such high number of microtones. I still have to figure out why it makes sense. (Any quick hints? :-) And yes, from the functional point of view, separate natural diatonic modes have distinctly different properties, so it totally makes sense to study those functions separately, absolutely.

:::::::::: As I said, in dealing with 159edo- or any other large edo for that matter- one of the most important things is to consider all of the pitches in the EDO as belonging to one of two classes "main" and "variant". As for why dealing in such large EDOs makes sense, I said on reddit that while might think that the complexity of having so many intervals might negate the main advantage of an EDO- which is simplicity- tuning all of the intervals exactly is still a pain, and is ultimately unnecessary when you get to differences of 3.5 cents or less, as differences of 3.5 cents or less are virtually imperceptible to even highly trained listeners. Thus, one of the main draws for higher EDOs- at least for me- is a compromise between simplicity and accuracy. I should also mention as long as the EDO's step size is simultaneously above the average peak JND of human pitch perception, and small enough to be well within the margin of error between Just 5-limit intervals and their 12edo counterparts, you ~~effective~~ end up with a decent balance between allowing the possibility of seamless modulation to keys that are not in the same series of fifths, and not having so many steps as to have individual steps blend completely into one another. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::: As I said, in dealing with 159edo- or any other large edo for that matter- one of the most important things is to consider all of the pitches in the EDO as belonging to one of two classes "main" and "variant". As for why dealing in such large EDOs makes sense, I said on reddit that while might think that the complexity of having so many intervals might negate the main advantage of an EDO- which is simplicity- tuning all of the intervals exactly is still a pain, and is ultimately unnecessary when you get to differences of 3.5 cents or less, as differences of 3.5 cents or less are virtually imperceptible to even highly trained listeners. Thus, one of the main draws for higher EDOs- at least for me- is a compromise between simplicity and accuracy. I should also mention as long as the EDO's step size is simultaneously above the average peak JND of human pitch perception, and small enough to be well within the margin of error between Just 5-limit intervals and their 12edo counterparts, you effectively end up with a decent balance between allowing the possibility of seamless modulation to keys that are not in the same series of fifths, and not having so many steps as to have individual steps blend completely into one another. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: Have you even thought about usable N-EDO systems, why N>12 are always prime numbers (I don't want to consider something like 22-EDO (which is very special) or 24-EDO (which has nothing new at all))?! It resembles the problem of remarkable [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral Ulam spiral], as far as I can see, it still doesn't have a theoretical explanation. Before finding any literature, I started from the algorithm for finding EDOs other than 12-EDO using different criteria of balanced approximating harmonic intervals, and immediately obtained those prime-number EDOs. I called the phenomenon "musical Ulam spiral". And I never found any publications trying to explain it.

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 ::::::::: Oh, yes, I already mentioned that I cannot even imagine dealing with such high number of microtones. I still have to figure out why it makes sense. (Any quick hints? :-) And yes, from the functional point of view, separate natural diatonic modes have distinctly different properties, so it totally makes sense to study those functions separately, absolutely.
-:::::::::: As I said, in dealing with 159edo- or any other large edo for that matter- one of the most important things is to consider all of the pitches in the EDO as belonging to one of two classes "main" and "variant".  As for why dealing in such large EDOs makes sense, I said on reddit that while might think that the complexity of having so many intervals might negate the main advantage of an EDO- which is simplicity- tuning all of the intervals exactly is still a pain, and is ultimately unnecessary when you get to differences of 3.5 cents or less, as differences of 3.5 cents or less are virtually imperceptible to even highly trained listeners. Thus, one of the main draws for higher EDOs- at least for me- is a compromise between simplicity and accuracy.  I should also mention as long as the EDO's step size is simultaneously above the average peak JND of human pitch perception, and small enough to be well within the margin of error between Just 5-limit intervals and their 12edo counterparts, you effective end up with a decent balance between allowing the possibility of seamless modulation to keys that are not in the same series of fifths, and not having so many steps as to have individual steps blend completely into one another. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::: As I said, in dealing with 159edo- or any other large edo for that matter- one of the most important things is to consider all of the pitches in the EDO as belonging to one of two classes "main" and "variant".  As for why dealing in such large EDOs makes sense, I said on reddit that while might think that the complexity of having so many intervals might negate the main advantage of an EDO- which is simplicity- tuning all of the intervals exactly is still a pain, and is ultimately unnecessary when you get to differences of 3.5 cents or less, as differences of 3.5 cents or less are virtually imperceptible to even highly trained listeners. Thus, one of the main draws for higher EDOs- at least for me- is a compromise between simplicity and accuracy.  I should also mention as long as the EDO's step size is simultaneously above the average peak JND of human pitch perception, and small enough to be well within the margin of error between Just 5-limit intervals and their 12edo counterparts, you effectively end up with a decent balance between allowing the possibility of seamless modulation to keys that are not in the same series of fifths, and not having so many steps as to have individual steps blend completely into one another. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 ::::::::: Have you even thought about usable N-EDO systems, why N>12 are always prime numbers (I don't want to consider something like 22-EDO (which is very special) or 24-EDO (which has nothing new at all))?! It resembles the problem of remarkable [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral Ulam spiral], as far as I can see, it still doesn't have a theoretical explanation. Before finding any literature, I started from the algorithm for finding EDOs other than 12-EDO using different criteria of balanced approximating harmonic intervals, and immediately obtained those prime-number EDOs. I called the phenomenon "musical Ulam spiral". And I never found any publications trying to explain it.