User talk:FloraC: Difference between revisions

Line 79:

: Sure, since you named them in the first place. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

== Meantone tuning spectrum additions? ==

My thoughts behind the additions I made to the tuning spectrum table (both removed and remaining):

# Add clarification about syntonic comma vs other commas -- quite a number of commas appear in the table, but syntonic comma has its adjective stripped (as is traditional, so I didn't think it right to change that), which could be confusing to new people, especially if they have also seen another tuning spectrum table that has a different primary comma.

# Fractions of Pythagorean comma appear often in this table, but the endpoints 7EDO and 5EDO have different 3-limit commas, so I thought it would be good to put those in there in the relevant lines.

# 3/4-comma (especially) and 2/3 comma Meantone are very close to 7EDO.

# Some of the EDOs in the table are there only by way of non-patent vals, but this was not explicit before.

# 12EDO is almost exactly 1 Schisma Meantone; also, somebody (probably copy/paste error) had 12EDO notated as as "virtually 1/12 Pythagorean comma" and not "virtually 1/11 (syntonic) comma".

# Since 5EDO is in the table (come to think of it, ''should it be there''?), I thought the addition of some of the more prominent negative Meantone (not sure what it should be called) tunings would be in order, especially Ptolemismic which is very close to 5EDO.

For (especially) the first last, I now understand from your edit comment that non-Septimal-Meantone 7-limit and all 11-limit entries should go somewhere else. I did see the tuning table for Flattone, so maybe the entries close to 7EDO should go there? And maybe the Flattone EDOs currently in this table should also be moved there? But then flatter-than-flattone (Flattertone) doesn't have its own tuning spectrum table, and given that it is a sub-entry of the Meantone family article, I thought a new table would look kind of funny there. Similarly, Dominant doesn't have its own tuning spectrum table, and given that it is a sub-entry of the Meantone family article, I thought a new table would look kind of funny there. Not sure yet whether all negative Meantones like 17c should all go in a hypothetical Dominant tuning spectrum table, although 17c itself is Dominant. I DID see (although I must confess temporarily forgot about) the multiple tuning tables in Meantone vs Meanpop, so maybe the Ptolemismic tuning (11-limit) should go there? Although I'm not sure which of the tables it would fit into. Of these tables, only Tridecimal Meantone and Meanpop (but not Tridecimal Meanpop) have a negative meantone entry at all, and those are all only very slightly sharpened. Although at least if a new tuning spectrum table was needed in there, it wouldn't seem out of place. On the other hand, maybe such a hypothetical table should be somewhere else entirely, since undecimal negative Meantone (probably -- haven't done the math yet) would be neither Undecimal Meantone nor Meanpop?

Anyway, when I made my edits, I didn't realize that I was stepping on an organizational convention in making the edits I thought of above, so until I learn it better, I will revert back to proposing such potentially organization-altering changes in the Talk pages associated with the pages I am considering.

[[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 18:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 : Sure, since you named them in the first place. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
+== Meantone tuning spectrum additions? ==
+My thoughts behind the additions I made to the tuning spectrum table (both removed and remaining):
+# Add clarification about syntonic comma vs other commas -- quite a number of commas appear in the table, but syntonic comma has its adjective stripped (as is traditional, so I didn't think it right to change that), which could be confusing to new people, especially if they have also seen another tuning spectrum table that has a different primary comma.
+# Fractions of Pythagorean comma appear often in this table, but the endpoints 7EDO and 5EDO have different 3-limit commas, so I thought it would be good to put those in there in the relevant lines.
+# 3/4-comma (especially) and 2/3 comma Meantone are very close to 7EDO.
+# Some of the EDOs in the table are there only by way of non-patent vals, but this was not explicit before.
+# 12EDO is almost exactly 1 Schisma Meantone; also, somebody (probably copy/paste error) had 12EDO notated as as "virtually 1/12 Pythagorean comma" and not "virtually 1/11 (syntonic) comma".
+# Since 5EDO is in the table (come to think of it, ''should it be there''?), I thought the addition of some of the more prominent negative Meantone (not sure what it should be called) tunings would be in order, especially Ptolemismic which is very close to 5EDO.
+For (especially) the first last, I now understand from your edit comment that non-Septimal-Meantone 7-limit and all 11-limit entries should go somewhere else.  I did see the tuning table for Flattone, so maybe the entries close to 7EDO should go there?  And maybe the Flattone EDOs currently in this table should also be moved there?  But then flatter-than-flattone (Flattertone) doesn't have its own tuning spectrum table, and given that it is a sub-entry of the Meantone family article, I thought a new table would look kind of funny there.  Similarly, Dominant doesn't have its own tuning spectrum table, and given that it is a sub-entry of the Meantone family article, I thought a new table would look kind of funny there.  Not sure yet whether all negative Meantones like 17c should all go in a hypothetical Dominant tuning spectrum table, although 17c itself is Dominant.  I DID see (although I must confess temporarily forgot about) the multiple tuning tables in Meantone vs Meanpop, so maybe the Ptolemismic tuning (11-limit) should go there?  Although I'm not sure which of the tables it would fit into.  Of these tables, only Tridecimal Meantone and Meanpop (but not Tridecimal Meanpop) have a negative meantone entry at all, and those are all only very slightly sharpened.  Although at least if a new tuning spectrum table was needed in there, it wouldn't seem out of place.  On the other hand, maybe such a hypothetical table should be somewhere else entirely, since undecimal negative Meantone (probably -- haven't done the math yet) would be neither Undecimal Meantone nor Meanpop?
+Anyway, when I made my edits, I didn't realize that I was stepping on an organizational convention in making the edits I thought of above, so until I learn it better, I will revert back to proposing such potentially organization-altering changes in the Talk pages associated with the pages I am considering.
+[[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 18:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)