Xenharmonic Wiki:Cross-platform dialogue: Difference between revisions

Line 139:

: KE tuning seems acceptable to me. I personally don't disagree with using something different than CTE, only to using POTE as the default way of giving a pure-octaves optimised tuning given that it seems hackish compared to CTE, KE, etc. (Actually, I prefer EDO tunings, so the "optimal ET sequence" is strange to me, why list less rank 1 tunings rather than more? I am more interested in say, every patent val tuning, or if not patent val where the warted interval respects a strong tendency of the EO.) It would be nice if the info was easy to obtain/generate; that's why I mentioned x31eq and sintel's temp finder. There is some discussion on this side of the fence that perhaps a template could be used that auto-generates temperament data; this has a couple of advantages. First, if later a better metric is discovered and there is consensus to it, it can be switched, so that the default metrics shown can be fixed easily, and second, there has been suggested the idea of showing multiple optimal tunings. It seems like it might be a good idea to include [[TE]] due to being in many ways the simplest way of optimising and due to being a basis of other methods, also because the POTE tuning is trivially derivable from it so also for historicity, and KE sounds like a good suggestion, although I'm unfamiliar with it personally. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

:: Thanks for expressing your general views tuning theory and tuning optimization. I see you seem to still think there is an open question if you want to "keep" the thing we made which you don't like, or replace it with the thing you made which we don't like. I think I've said my piece about this way of doing things at this point. When you folks figure out what you want to do, if it still involves removing stuff, please ask us on FB first. Thanks. [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 20:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:53, 16 March 2024 view source Godtone (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled 2,289 edits →Mike's Response to All This: respond to suggestion of KE and note idea of using a template for temp data ← Older edit		Revision as of 20:15, 16 March 2024 view source Mike Battaglia (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, confirmaccount-notify, emailconfirmed, Interface administrators, Sysops 1,399 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 139:		Line 139:

	: KE tuning seems acceptable to me. I personally don't disagree with using something different than CTE, only to using POTE as the default way of giving a pure-octaves optimised tuning given that it seems hackish compared to CTE, KE, etc. (Actually, I prefer EDO tunings, so the "optimal ET sequence" is strange to me, why list less rank 1 tunings rather than more? I am more interested in say, every patent val tuning, or if not patent val where the warted interval respects a strong tendency of the EO.) It would be nice if the info was easy to obtain/generate; that's why I mentioned x31eq and sintel's temp finder. There is some discussion on this side of the fence that perhaps a template could be used that auto-generates temperament data; this has a couple of advantages. First, if later a better metric is discovered and there is consensus to it, it can be switched, so that the default metrics shown can be fixed easily, and second, there has been suggested the idea of showing multiple optimal tunings. It seems like it might be a good idea to include [[TE]] due to being in many ways the simplest way of optimising and due to being a basis of other methods, also because the POTE tuning is trivially derivable from it so also for historicity, and KE sounds like a good suggestion, although I'm unfamiliar with it personally. --[[User:Godtone\|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone\|talk]]) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)		: KE tuning seems acceptable to me. I personally don't disagree with using something different than CTE, only to using POTE as the default way of giving a pure-octaves optimised tuning given that it seems hackish compared to CTE, KE, etc. (Actually, I prefer EDO tunings, so the "optimal ET sequence" is strange to me, why list less rank 1 tunings rather than more? I am more interested in say, every patent val tuning, or if not patent val where the warted interval respects a strong tendency of the EO.) It would be nice if the info was easy to obtain/generate; that's why I mentioned x31eq and sintel's temp finder. There is some discussion on this side of the fence that perhaps a template could be used that auto-generates temperament data; this has a couple of advantages. First, if later a better metric is discovered and there is consensus to it, it can be switched, so that the default metrics shown can be fixed easily, and second, there has been suggested the idea of showing multiple optimal tunings. It seems like it might be a good idea to include [[TE]] due to being in many ways the simplest way of optimising and due to being a basis of other methods, also because the POTE tuning is trivially derivable from it so also for historicity, and KE sounds like a good suggestion, although I'm unfamiliar with it personally. --[[User:Godtone\|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone\|talk]]) 18:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

			:: Thanks for expressing your general views tuning theory and tuning optimization. I see you seem to still think there is an open question if you want to "keep" the thing we made which you don't like, or replace it with the thing you made which we don't like. I think I've said my piece about this way of doing things at this point. When you folks figure out what you want to do, if it still involves removing stuff, please ask us on FB first. Thanks. [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia\|talk]]) 20:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)