Template talk:Infobox ET: Difference between revisions

Line 2:

(for better accessibility/readability split into sub headings)

~~===Prime factorization===~~

IMO usually not that useful, and when it is useful it should be discussed in the theory section of the edo article. I propose it be replaced with number of rings of 5ths (see my proposal below). --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

===Subgroup===

Line 21:

Line 17:

::::: I can see why. Still, I can see both the "fifth type" and the "subgroup" parameters being useful if they are refined. The "fifth type" parameter should reflect the nature of the tempered fifth- though we admittedly need to discuss how to do this right- while the "subgroup" parameter (I think) should reflect the portions of the Harmonic Lattice that said EDO approximates to within 3.5 cents of error. I'll tell more about my thoughts concerning the fifth in the section on "fifth type" below. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

::: I totally agree with Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise". There is no indisputable way to decide which primes are tuned accurately enough to be included in this section. The indisputable information about primes is already on every edo page, in the Selected just intervals by error section. The table of errors for each prime, by cents and by % of edostep. This table is not concise enough to fit in the template. So I suggest removing the subgroup parameter from the template altogether. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

=== Fifth type ===

Line 38:

Line 32:

Hmm... Perhaps the type tempered fifth- particularly for those EDO fifths that more closely approximate the [[3/2]] just fifth than their neighbors- should have categories involving the 2.3 comma that's tempered out- e.g. the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Mercator" because [[Mercator's comma]] is tempered out. Similarly, the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Pythagorean" because the [[Pythagorean comma]] is tempered out. I hope this is at least a start... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

: "Similarly, the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Pythagorean"" - did you mean 12edo? Every edo tempers out only one 2.3 comma (not counting multiples of this comma). For N-edo, the comma's 3-exponent is ±N/GCD(M,N), where the best 3/2 is M\N. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with FloraC, fifth type is not rigorously defined. Every comma that contains primes 2 and 3 and only 1 other prime implies a fifth size, or a narrow range of fifth sizes. But the exact range is disputable, and also there are an infinite number of possible commas. There is already a lengthy table of commas on every edo page. By Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise" rule, we should not list the fifth type. I propose there only be fifth size in edosteps and cents, e.g. for 24edo, "14\24 700¢". The shorter the better. We could possibly have IlL's categories of mavila, 7edo, hypopent, (just 3/2), hyperpent, 5edo, father. (BTW these are quite similar to my edo categories superflat, perfect, diatonic, pentatonic and supersharp.) But once you know the fifth size, it's easy to tell what category it's in. The 7edo category is obvious -- the edo must be a smallish (< 50) multiple of 7, and the 5th must be 680-something cents. The 5edo category is even more obvious. Mavila and father are also obvious, the 5th is < 680¢ or > 720¢. It's not like there are edos who's fifths are only a cent or two away from 4\7 or 3\5. Hypopent and hyperpent are mostly easy to tell too, as long as you know how many cents 3/2 is. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

=== Important MOSes ===

Line 48:

Line 38:

: Right now there's some overlap between MOSes and notable uses, those could use a single parameter. Notable MOSes could be limited to size <=10. (and be described in a temperament-independent manner) [[User:IlL|IlL]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 09:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:: I agree that this will become bloated, it's also not indisputable what's important enough. Also for large edos, the number of MOSes is huge. IMO this parameter should be removed. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

=== Example composition/score ===

Line 56:

Line 43:

: I think contests for popular edos is a good idea. What kind of timeline are you thinking of for the contest? As for the kind of composition, I'd think it should showcase some of the special features of the edo. Maybe (like the current 13edo example) short sections in different MOS scales. Or showcase the way that voice leading works differently than in 12edo (e.g., a composition where major triads are dissonances in 17edo). [[User:Schrodingasdawg|Schrodingasdawg]] ([[User talk:Schrodingasdawg|talk]]) 18:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:: This is a fun idea, but it doesn't belong in the template! How would the contest be judged? Would the winner be indisputable? There's already a section for musical examples. Also, larger edos tend to sound alike. If I wrote something in 5-limit or 7-limit JI and made two recordings, one in 53-edo and the other in 72-edo, I doubt most people could tell which was which. Because all large edos sound like JI. Perhaps instead there could be a sound file, like the ratio template has. For smaller edos, it could be the entire gamut of notes up to an 8ve. For larger edos, perhaps a 5-limit major scale? --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

=== Steps or Step count ===

Line 101:

Line 86:

It's not a good idea to start a template with alternative names for the same parameter. So I suggest to normalize the names to "Lemma case", that is, only first letter is uppercase, except for the MOS abbreviation. [[:Category:Todo:normalize EDO parameters]] collects use cases of the template with parameter names that should therefore be changed. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 21:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

== Kite's proposed format for the edo template ==

I propose step size, fifth in edosteps and cents, number of rings, and pythagorean major 2nd and minor 2nd in edosteps and cents. Indisputable and concise. If the fifth is M\N, the number of rings is GCD (M,N). This number tells us which smaller edos have the same fifth. For example, 72-edo has 6 rings. Divide 72 by 6 to get 12, therefore 12-edo has the same 5th. As do multiples of 12 like 24, 36, 48 and 60. If there are N rings, there are N-1 smaller edos with the same fifth. I'm tempted to add the sharpness/flatness parameter (# of edosteps per sharp sign), but this is just the # of edosteps in the pythagorean A1, and that's easily calculated as M2 - m2. 31edo example: Step size = 38.710¢, Fifth = 13\31 = 696.77¢, Rings = 1, Major 2nd = 5\31 = 193.55¢, Minor 2nd = 3\31 = 116.13¢. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 (for better accessibility/readability split into sub headings)
-===Prime factorization===
-IMO usually not that useful, and when it is useful it should be discussed in the theory section of the edo article. I propose it be replaced with number of rings of 5ths (see my proposal below). --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 ===Subgroup===
@@ Line 21: / Line 17: @@
 ::::: I can see why.  Still, I can see both the "fifth type" and the "subgroup" parameters being useful if they are refined.  The "fifth type" parameter should reflect the nature of the tempered fifth- though we admittedly need to discuss how to do this right- while the "subgroup" parameter (I think) should reflect the portions of the Harmonic Lattice that said EDO approximates to within 3.5 cents of error.  I'll tell more about my thoughts concerning the fifth in the section on "fifth type" below. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
-::: I totally agree with Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise". There is no indisputable way to decide which primes are tuned accurately enough to be included in this section. The indisputable information about primes is already on every edo page, in the Selected just intervals by error section. The table of errors for each prime, by cents and by % of edostep. This table is not concise enough to fit in the template. So I suggest removing the subgroup parameter from the template altogether. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 === Fifth type ===
@@ Line 38: / Line 32: @@
 Hmm...  Perhaps the type tempered fifth- particularly for those EDO fifths that more closely approximate the [[3/2]] just fifth than their neighbors- should have categories involving the 2.3 comma that's tempered out- e.g. the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Mercator" because [[Mercator's comma]] is tempered out.  Similarly, the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Pythagorean" because the [[Pythagorean comma]] is tempered out.  I hope this is at least a start... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
-: "Similarly, the type of fifth that 53edo has should just be called "Pythagorean"" - did you mean 12edo? Every edo tempers out only one 2.3 comma (not counting multiples of this comma). For N-edo, the comma's 3-exponent is ±N/GCD(M,N), where the best 3/2 is M\N. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
-I agree with FloraC, fifth type is not rigorously defined. Every comma that contains primes 2 and 3 and only 1 other prime implies a fifth size, or a narrow range of fifth sizes. But the exact range is disputable, and also there are an infinite number of possible commas. There is already a lengthy table of commas on every edo page. By Xenwolf's "indisputable and concise" rule, we should not list the fifth type. I propose there only be fifth size in edosteps and cents, e.g. for 24edo, "14\24 700¢". The shorter the better. We could possibly have IlL's categories of mavila, 7edo, hypopent, (just 3/2), hyperpent, 5edo, father. (BTW these are quite similar to my edo categories superflat, perfect, diatonic, pentatonic and supersharp.) But once you know the fifth size, it's easy to tell what category it's in. The 7edo category is obvious -- the edo must be a smallish (< 50) multiple of 7, and the 5th must be 680-something cents. The 5edo category is even more obvious. Mavila and father are also obvious, the 5th is < 680¢ or > 720¢. It's not like there are edos who's fifths are only a cent or two away from 4\7 or 3\5. Hypopent and hyperpent are mostly easy to tell too, as long as you know how many cents 3/2 is. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 === Important MOSes ===
@@ Line 48: / Line 38: @@
 : Right now there's some overlap between MOSes and notable uses, those could use a single parameter. Notable MOSes could be limited to size <=10. (and be described in a temperament-independent manner) [[User:IlL|IlL]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 09:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
-:: I agree that this will become bloated, it's also not indisputable what's important enough. Also for large edos, the number of MOSes is huge. IMO this parameter should be removed. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 === Example composition/score ===
@@ Line 56: / Line 43: @@
 : I think contests for popular edos is a good idea. What kind of timeline are you thinking of for the contest? As for the kind of composition, I'd think it should showcase some of the special features of the edo. Maybe (like the current 13edo example) short sections in different MOS scales. Or showcase the way that voice leading works differently than in 12edo (e.g., a composition where major triads are dissonances in 17edo). [[User:Schrodingasdawg|Schrodingasdawg]] ([[User talk:Schrodingasdawg|talk]]) 18:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
-:: This is a fun idea, but it doesn't belong in the template! How would the contest be judged? Would the winner be indisputable? There's already a section for musical examples. Also, larger edos tend to sound alike. If I wrote something in 5-limit or 7-limit JI and made two recordings, one in 53-edo and the other in 72-edo, I doubt most people could tell which was which. Because all large edos sound like JI. Perhaps instead there could be a sound file, like the ratio template has. For smaller edos, it could be the entire gamut of notes up to an 8ve. For larger edos, perhaps a 5-limit major scale? --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 === Steps or Step count ===
@@ Line 101: / Line 86: @@
 It's not a good idea to start a template with alternative names for the same parameter. So I suggest to normalize the names to "Lemma case", that is, only first letter is uppercase, except for the MOS abbreviation. [[:Category:Todo:normalize EDO parameters]] collects use cases of the template with parameter names that should therefore be changed. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 21:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
+== Kite's proposed format for the edo template ==
+I propose step size, fifth in edosteps and cents, number of rings, and pythagorean major 2nd and minor 2nd in edosteps and cents. Indisputable and concise. If the fifth is M\N, the number of rings is GCD (M,N). This number tells us which smaller edos have the same fifth. For example, 72-edo has 6 rings. Divide 72 by 6 to get 12, therefore 12-edo has the same 5th. As do multiples of 12 like 24, 36, 48 and 60. If there are N rings, there are N-1 smaller edos with the same fifth.  I'm tempted to add the sharpness/flatness parameter (# of edosteps per sharp sign), but this is just the # of edosteps in the pythagorean A1, and that's easily calculated as M2 - m2. 31edo example: Step size = 38.710¢, Fifth = 13\31 = 696.77¢, Rings = 1, Major 2nd = 5\31 = 193.55¢, Minor 2nd = 3\31 = 116.13¢. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 22:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)