User talk:Aura/Aura's Diatonic Scales: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Both the pythagorean 32/27 and 19/16 are simpler. Maybe for a smaller prime limit? It contains no simple ratios to other notes, so I don't understand the meaning for a smaller prime limit. (Sorry that English is not my native language, maybe my words are not proper)--[[User:Zhenlige|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige|talk]]) 12:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | Both the pythagorean 32/27 and 19/16 are simpler. Maybe for a smaller prime limit? It contains no simple ratios to other notes, so I don't understand the meaning for a smaller prime limit. (Sorry that English is not my native language, maybe my words are not proper)--[[User:Zhenlige|Zhenlige]] ([[User talk:Zhenlige|talk]]) 12:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
: I do indeed use Pythagorean 32/27 already, but in a different capacity, since it's not close enough to be substituted for 6/5. For an interval to be a proper substitute for 6/5, I do indeed need a smaller prime limit than 19, but more than that, I also need something that has a power of two in either the numerator or the denominator. As for simple ratios to other notes, 77/64 does indeed have a few, namely, it relates to 11/8 by 8/7 and it also relates to 7/4 by 16/11- granted, these are paradiatonic notes rather than diatonic notes, but all the same. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||