Talk:33/25

Relation to 128/99

Okay, we need to work out how to distinguish this interval from 128/99 in terms of nomenclature. --Aura (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You mean both (33/25 and 128/99) are undecimal fourths? But the other is much more a subfourth ... --Xenwolf (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed the case that 128/99 is more of a subfourth. However, if you look in the infobox for 33/25, you will see that 33/25 is dubbed the "undecimal sub-fourth". Therefore, the name in the infobox for 33/25 ought to be changed. --Aura (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

As can be seen on Gallery of just intervals, "unedecimal forth" isn't already taken. So I'd suggest to remove the sub prefix here. --Xenwolf (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Right then. --Aura (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

But why imperfect? If it's undecimal, it cannot be perfect, so the imperfect attribute seems redundant to me. --Xenwolf (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Because different EDOs have their own tempered versions of 3/2, and some of them are only an unnoticeable comma's distance away from the actual 3/2. I'd figure we use the "imperfect" label for cases where the differences are more noticeable. --Aura (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

For those ratios that fall within the 3.5-cent range on either side of 3/2, we would call them "quasi-perfect"- or at least that's my thinking on the matter. --Aura (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)