Talk:Gallery of just intervals: Difference between revisions
→336/317: Re |
→451/301: new section |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
: It seems quite complex to me (especially with 317 being prime), and there are many intervals close to 100¢ with a similar level of complexity or less, such as [[18/17]] (very simple, 1¢ flat), 107/101 (two smaller primes, 0,1¢ flat), etc. In other words, the name "12-edo step under just intonation" could be attributed to many intervals, and I probably wouldn't choose 336/317 if I have to choose one. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 21:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC) | : It seems quite complex to me (especially with 317 being prime), and there are many intervals close to 100¢ with a similar level of complexity or less, such as [[18/17]] (very simple, 1¢ flat), 107/101 (two smaller primes, 0,1¢ flat), etc. In other words, the name "12-edo step under just intonation" could be attributed to many intervals, and I probably wouldn't choose 336/317 if I have to choose one. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 21:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC) | ||
== 451/301 == | |||
Yet another 12EDO-esque perfect 5th. I'm not sure if it has more offset than Kirnberger's fifth. | |||
I tested it on Xenpaper and I got approximately 700.0 cents. | |||
-- [[User:PrySigneToFexia|I'm PrySigneToFexia,]] [[User_talk:PrySigneToFexia|you can talk with me at here.]] I posted this at 10:54 2026.7.21 Tue (CST). | |||