Talk:39edo: Difference between revisions

Line 30:

:: That sounds very sensible — put my vote in for that as well. [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 18:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

:: > Not everyone agrees that more accurate necessarily means "better", and that patent vals are completely arbitrary.

:: That's why I need these ppl to hear me out.

:: > The patent val isn't completely uninteresting, supporting structures like immunity and triforce.

:: I think it's less interesting than 39c. I think Leri has made a case for 39d vs 39c, so dual-5 dual-7, which is more acceptable than dual-7 alone. I should add that the prime 17 in 39c doesn't really work given it tunes 17/16 < 18/17, and that 39d might benefit more from a 19 than 13 tho I don't really mind 39df. I also think 2.3.25.35.11 is too sparse a subgroup to be interesting. Overall I'm willing to take the compromise of two columns, one based on 39d and the other based on 39c, with the patent val deducible from them.

:: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 20:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

: I have no opinion on 39et in particular, but I will agree that "patentness" is a completely arbitrary quality and the procedure of rounding is merely heuristic to get something that usually works. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 19:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 :: That sounds very sensible &mdash; put my vote in for that as well.  [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 18:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
+:: > Not everyone agrees that more accurate necessarily means "better", and that patent vals are completely arbitrary.
+:: That's why I need these ppl to hear me out.
+:: > The patent val isn't completely uninteresting, supporting structures like immunity and triforce.
+:: I think it's less interesting than 39c. I think Leri has made a case for 39d vs 39c, so dual-5 dual-7, which is more acceptable than dual-7 alone. I should add that the prime 17 in 39c doesn't really work given it tunes 17/16 < 18/17, and that 39d might benefit more from a 19 than 13 tho I don't really mind 39df. I also think 2.3.25.35.11 is too sparse a subgroup to be interesting. Overall I'm willing to take the compromise of two columns, one based on 39d and the other based on 39c, with the patent val deducible from them.
+:: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 20:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
 : I have no opinion on 39et in particular, but I will agree that "patentness" is a completely arbitrary quality and the procedure of rounding is merely heuristic to get something that usually works. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 19:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)