Talk:Meantone family: Difference between revisions
→Stuff above 19-limit deleted: (Pointed back up to Vincenzo.) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
:: Okay, so it's specific to this particular higher-limit stuff not being useful, not that any higher-limit stuff should be cut out. Fair enough. And I didn't connect the name Vincenzo to the stuff that was deleted. [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 06:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC) | :: Okay, so it's specific to this particular higher-limit stuff not being useful, not that any higher-limit stuff should be cut out. Fair enough. And I didn't connect the name Vincenzo to the stuff that was deleted. [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 06:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC) | ||
::: Yeah. We're currently proposing a more extensive streamlining of the septimal meantone strong extensions as well because many extensions include mappings of different primes with incompatible tuning tendencies. I don't believe this would be applied more generally; meantone extensions are a somewhat extreme case in terms of clutter, and doing this would help illuminate what actually useful extensions are there in different tuning subranges of meantone. But these extensions will continue to reach the 19-limit. --[[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 13:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC) | |||