Talk:POTE tuning: Difference between revisions
→Video tutorial: new section |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Is someone able and willing to make a video? Or is there an article with illustrations that enables even non-mathematicians like me to follow the process? Thanks in advance for your help. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 13:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | Is someone able and willing to make a video? Or is there an article with illustrations that enables even non-mathematicians like me to follow the process? Thanks in advance for your help. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 13:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
== Justification == | |||
This article fails to justify why POTE is a good idea. The Kees Height is a complexity measure on JI intervals, not an error metric on tempered intervals, so I can't see how the resulting tuning is optimal in this sense. | |||
As I understand it, the POTE tuning simply finds the least-squares tuning under the TE norm, and then does a completely ad-hoc adjustment to get the octaves just. In constrast, the [[CTE tuning|constrained TE tuning]] is actually optimal under the TE norm, in the subspace where the octave is just. It seems like a much better candidate for a 'standard' tuning. | |||
-[[User:Sintel|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel|talk]]) 20:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC) | |||