Talk:Tenney–Euclidean tuning: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 == Motivation & "weaknesses" ==
 We'll need to review these sections. It's written way too vague yet still has too many judgements baked in. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 16:08, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
+: Here's some specifics from the "weaknesses" section.
+: > TE must give an undue weight to extremely large intervals, as evidenced by the fact that you have to choose a prime limit to get sensible results. It doesn't converge as you keep adding primes.
+: This is one of the possible complaints about Tenney weighting in general, and points towards Wilson weighting. I'm not sure this article is the right place to discuss it.
+: > The optimization with octaves constrained to be pure (CTE) is controversial, and many believe the implied TE error function being minimized to be incorrect in this case and so generally invalid. Variations to fix this are considered under Constrained tuning.
+: This is simply wrong. TE and CTE optimize for the same error function. CTE is controversial not becuz of a problem in the error function but becuz octave tempering is a means of effectively compensating for divisive ratios.
+: > Weighting intervals according to their size gives less weight to higher primes than an RMS specifically considering audible ratios within the prime limit.
+: This is another possible complaint about Tenney weighting in general, and points towards equal/equilateral weighting, which is an opposite of Wilson weighting. This and the first point should never appear in the same place from the same projected user group.
+: > That TE tuning appears to be a limit to infinity of RMS of intervals approaching infinite complexity is meaningless. The human ear can't perceive even moderately complex intervals and the convergence is too slow to be psychoacoustically meaningful.
+: This is similar and complementary to the first point, and again points towards Wilson weighting.
+: > Optimizing for an average rather than a minimax means intolerably mistuned intervals are balanced by needlessly pure intervals, rather than ensuring all intervals get tempered to within tolerable bounds.
+: While I get where this is coming from, minimax gives purely tuned intervals way more frequently than RMS. It's also not guaranteed that minimax can tune all relevant intervals within tolerable bounds.
+: > Requiring octaves to be tempered is inconsistent with some electronic intervals with octave-repeating tuning tables.
+: This isn't a distinct issue on top of the ubiquity of octave equivalence. Replace "octave" with "fifth" and the logic still holds, so I don't think it needs to be brought up.
+: Fixing this section will be difficult as most of the contents are so out of place. I'd say a complete removal is the best way to go. Then we might wanna selectively re-install them to the relevant articles.
+: As for the "motivation" section, most of it is discussing the characteristics of Tenney weighting and Euclidean norms. I'm thinking about condensing it to something similar to the "features" section of Wikipedia's IPA sound articles.
+: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)