EFD: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Instead of equally dividing the octave into 12 equal parts by pitch, as is done for 12-EDO, standard tuning, you could divide it into 12 equal parts by '''frequency'''. This would give you 12-EFDO. However, that's not exactly ideal because, as with arithmetic sequences, different acronyms are used to distinguish rational (JI) tunings from irrational (non-JI) tunings, and so EFD is typically reserved for irrational tunings, such as 12-EFDφ. So it would be more appropriate to name this tuning 12-ODO, for otonal divisions of the octave. | Instead of equally dividing the octave into 12 equal parts by pitch, as is done for 12-EDO, standard tuning, you could divide it into 12 equal parts by '''frequency'''. This would give you 12-EFDO. However, that's not exactly ideal because, as with arithmetic sequences, different acronyms are used to distinguish rational (JI) tunings from irrational (non-JI) tunings, and so EFD is typically reserved for irrational tunings, such as 12-EFDφ. So it would be more appropriate to name this tuning 12-ODO, for otonal divisions of the octave. | ||
The analogous utonal equivalent of an EFD is an [[ELD|ELD (equal length division)]]. | |||
An EFD will be equivalent to some [[AFS|AFS, or arithmetic frequency sequence]], which has had its count of pitches specified by prefixing "n-". Specifically, EFDx = n-AFS((x-1)/n). | |||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||