Talk:IFDO: Difference between revisions

Line 453:

::: Let's edit the pages accordingly. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 16:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

:::: Dang, Fredg999, that's some good stuff! Yes, I did notice last week that some of the pages I made back in 2021 sorta take the units for granted, such as assuming frequency or length as the musical resource being sequenced or divided, just like how I'm warning against here. At the time I wrote those pages, I wasn't cognizant of all these historical usages and conceptual relationships, but now I certainly agree that this aspect needs fixing. (Also, I think my experience working with Dave on the RTT guide, where we ended up including an entire article on units analysis, has influenced me to appreciate and advocate for mindfulness of units too.)

:::: And Flora, I'm delighted and relieved to find that you basically agree with the main ideas I presented. I was afraid I'd been too harsh or impatient with you. As always, it's fun to confront these intellectual/musical/pedagogical challenges with you.

:::: Alright, so I figure that we should give Flora and CompactStar the first pass at updating the pages they created. To be clear, this is not because I consider it their responsibility or anything, nor because I want to create work for them to do; it's because I want to give them the opportunity to make their own pages (as well as Shaahin's original pages) as clear and coherent as they can according to their own thinking. Plus this'll be a good test of the new perspective Fredg999 and I brought to the problem, to see if other people besides us can articulate it well; I bet y'all can improve further upon how we explained things, by ironing out whatever idiosyncrasies to our approaches. I expect that after they take care of this, since we seem to be largely on the same page together now, while Fredg999 and I may have some comments or tweaks here or there, probably we won't need to have too much back and forth discussion after that.

:::: Meanwhile, I should do what I can to tighten up all the pages that I originally made. While I share credit for designing my system with Paul and Billy, they aren't hands-on with the wiki, so I can take care of it. That said, if Fredg999 wants to take the first pass themself — i.e. at updating the equations on the AFS, APS, and ALS pages per his comment above, like including the base frequency so as to return actual steps in frequencies rather than pure numbers — that's A-OK with me.

:::: Finally, I should acknowledge that Fredg999 is 100% right about the GPS issue. In other words, I still definitely stand by the relationships I described between the arithmetic row of the tables and the frequency column of the tables, but anything else I said about the cells anywhere in the middle of those tables wasn't as carefully thought out, and I can see now that it's incorrect. Thanks for taking the time and care to lay it out so clearly, Fredg999. Well...! But now I'm just fascinated by the questions you've raised w/r/t this "geometric pitch sequence" idea. If it is to be defined, I think it has to be defined in terms of ''intervals'', not pitches (along the lines of how you showed that both <math>f</math> and <math>f_0</math> must be included in pitch-related formulae); when describing scales in cents, we often start with 0¢, but that won't work if we want to repeatedly multiply it by something, of course... so we'd need to describe a scale that, say, starts with a 100¢ interval, then goes by 90¢, then by 81¢, then 72.9¢, etc. etc. I went to my [[harmonotonic tuning]]s page because I thought I'd been pretty comprehensive about all step-monotonic tunings back when I wrote it, but as far as I can tell, scales like this are not documented yet at all. I hoped maybe this'd be equivalent to, like, some sort of a [[powharmonic series]] or [[logharmonic series]], but I really don't think so. But anyway, that stuff's really not fresh in my head, and also I really shouldn't be spending too much of my time on these sorts of experiments, but I encourage y'all to go wild.

:::: First things first though... let's clean up what we've got out there already. Let me know if my plan basically makes sense to y'all too, or else I'll just keep an eye out for your changes to pages. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 22:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 453: / Line 453: @@
 ::: Let's edit the pages accordingly. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 16:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
+:::: Dang, Fredg999, that's some good stuff! Yes, I did notice last week that some of the pages I made back in 2021 sorta take the units for granted, such as assuming frequency or length as the musical resource being sequenced or divided, just like how I'm warning against here. At the time I wrote those pages, I wasn't cognizant of all these historical usages and conceptual relationships, but now I certainly agree that this aspect needs fixing. (Also, I think my experience working with Dave on the RTT guide, where we ended up including an entire article on units analysis, has influenced me to appreciate and advocate for mindfulness of units too.)
+:::: And Flora, I'm delighted and relieved to find that you basically agree with the main ideas I presented. I was afraid I'd been too harsh or impatient with you. As always, it's fun to confront these intellectual/musical/pedagogical challenges with you.
+:::: Alright, so I figure that we should give Flora and CompactStar the first pass at updating the pages they created. To be clear, this is not because I consider it their responsibility or anything, nor because I want to create work for them to do; it's because I want to give them the opportunity to make their own pages (as well as Shaahin's original pages) as clear and coherent as they can according to their own thinking. Plus this'll be a good test of the new perspective Fredg999 and I brought to the problem, to see if other people besides us can articulate it well; I bet y'all can improve further upon how we explained things, by ironing out whatever idiosyncrasies to our approaches. I expect that after they take care of this, since we seem to be largely on the same page together now, while Fredg999 and I may have some comments or tweaks here or there, probably we won't need to have too much back and forth discussion after that.
+:::: Meanwhile, I should do what I can to tighten up all the pages that I originally made. While I share credit for designing my system with Paul and Billy, they aren't hands-on with the wiki, so I can take care of it. That said, if Fredg999 wants to take the first pass themself — i.e. at updating the equations on the AFS, APS, and ALS pages per his comment above, like including the base frequency so as to return actual steps in frequencies rather than pure numbers — that's A-OK with me.
+:::: Finally, I should acknowledge that Fredg999 is 100% right about the GPS issue. In other words, I still definitely stand by the relationships I described between the arithmetic row of the tables and the frequency column of the tables, but anything else I said about the cells anywhere in the middle of those tables wasn't as carefully thought out, and I can see now that it's incorrect. Thanks for taking the time and care to lay it out so clearly, Fredg999. Well...! But now I'm just fascinated by the questions you've raised w/r/t this "geometric pitch sequence" idea. If it is to be defined, I think it has to be defined in terms of ''intervals'', not pitches (along the lines of how you showed that both <math>f</math> and <math>f_0</math> must be included in pitch-related formulae); when describing scales in cents, we often start with 0¢, but that won't work if we want to repeatedly multiply it by something, of course... so we'd need to describe a scale that, say, starts with a 100¢ interval, then goes by 90¢, then by 81¢, then 72.9¢, etc. etc. I went to my [[harmonotonic tuning]]s page because I thought I'd been pretty comprehensive about all step-monotonic tunings back when I wrote it, but as far as I can tell, scales like this are not documented yet at all. I hoped maybe this'd be equivalent to, like, some sort of a [[powharmonic series]] or [[logharmonic series]], but I really don't think so. But anyway, that stuff's really not fresh in my head, and also I really shouldn't be spending too much of my time on these sorts of experiments, but I encourage y'all to go wild.
+:::: First things first though... let's clean up what we've got out there already. Let me know if my plan basically makes sense to y'all too, or else I'll just keep an eye out for your changes to pages. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 22:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)