Talk:Helmholtz–Ellis notation: Difference between revisions
→31-limit schisma and 41-limit comma symbols: Deprecated symbols section does help |
Dual-value harmonics? |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:: Okay, thanks, it makes sense now. (And then we have to wait for whoever is in charge of the Helmholtz-Ellis standard to realize that the 23-limit symbols could cause confusion). [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 19:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC) | :: Okay, thanks, it makes sense now. (And then we have to wait for whoever is in charge of the Helmholtz-Ellis standard to realize that the 23-limit symbols could cause confusion). [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 19:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC) | ||
== Dual-value harmonics (Helmholtz-Ellis edition)? == | |||
What notation should one use for systems with dual values for a harmonic? For instance, 55edo has a 7th harmonic that is far enough from just to merit interpretation as 7♯ with only mostly more raw error than 7♭, and the 7♯ would actually introduce less error in combination with the sharp (but not split) 5th harmonic, while 7♭ would introduce less error in combination withe flat 3rd and 11th harmonics or by itself. Similar situations occur with 48edo and 67edo with their split 5th harmonics, and with any dual-fifth system. [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 09:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC) | |||