User:Eboone/EDO Impressions: Difference between revisions

Line 37:

This isn't always the case, but it generally is. One of the primary appeals of edos in general is their convenience and versatility, especially in comparison to just intonation. The extreme end of this is very small edos, and as you venture into larger edos, their compactness becomes less important as they strive to be closer to just intonation. Essentially, a small edo that works very well in a certain JI subset (such as 12edo) gains less from being multiplied, as the amount of new notes isn't justified by a newfound ability to approximate JI.

For example, 72edo does a much better job in the 2.3.5.7.11 subgroup than 12edo, but now you have to deal with 72 notes. At that point, why not just use just intonation?* ~~Smaller examples include 9edo and and~~ 10edo being placed above ~~18edo and~~ 20edo ~~respectively~~.

For example, 72edo does a much better job in the 2.3.5.7.11 subgroup than 12edo, but now you have to deal with 72 notes. At that point, why not just use just intonation?* The smallest example of this is 10edo being placed above 20edo.

''*I understand the rationale behind using very large edos instead of just intonation. It isn't just about approximating ratios; there are also things like mosses to consider. I, however, am not in the crowd that uses very large edos. At a certain point (72edo to be exact), the sheer amount of notes is enough to tank any other possible advantages of using a particular edo. This segues nicely into the next point:''

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 This isn't always the case, but it generally is. One of the primary appeals of edos in general is their convenience and versatility, especially in comparison to just intonation. The extreme end of this is very small edos, and as you venture into larger edos, their compactness becomes less important as they strive to be closer to just intonation. Essentially, a small edo that works very well in a certain JI subset (such as 12edo) gains less from being multiplied, as the amount of new notes isn't justified by a newfound ability to approximate JI.
-For example, 72edo does a much better job in the 2.3.5.7.11 subgroup than 12edo, but now you have to deal with 72 notes. At that point, why not just use just intonation?* Smaller examples include 9edo and and 10edo being placed above 18edo and 20edo respectively.
+For example, 72edo does a much better job in the 2.3.5.7.11 subgroup than 12edo, but now you have to deal with 72 notes. At that point, why not just use just intonation?* The smallest example of this is 10edo being placed above 20edo.
 ''*I understand the rationale behind using very large edos instead of just intonation. It isn't just about approximating ratios; there are also things like mosses to consider. I, however, am not in the crowd that uses very large edos. At a certain point (72edo to be exact), the sheer amount of notes is enough to tank any other possible advantages of using a particular edo. This segues nicely into the next point:''