|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| = ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =
| | {{WSArchiveLink}} |
| '''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Umlauts ==
| |
| I'm bringing the Xenwiki into line with Graham's site
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' December 21, 2011, 12:40:27 PM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| | |
| == Doppelwuerschmidt? ==
| |
| I think Doppelwuerschmidt should be removed unless it can be provided with a definition and an explanation for why it is interesting.
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' November 13, 2011, 08:35:17 PM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| I don't see the problem - yes maybe it could renamed Double Wuerschmidt, and consonanzen reads sligtly denglish, but why not?
| |
| | |
| I discovered, for instance, that 5th harmonic is skipped and 128/125 is avoided...
| |
| | |
| What is the difference between the <em>definition</em> of Doppelwuerschmidt and - say - the <em>definition</em> of Wurschmidt?
| |
| | |
| - '''xenwolf''' November 13, 2011, 11:49:48 PM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| It seems to me that "Doppelwuerschmidt" is practically identical to skwares.
| |
| | |
| http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/rt.cgi?ets=31+17&limit=2.3.25.7.11
| |
| | |
| If you think you like Doppelwuerschmidt, what you like is probably skwares. The 25th harmonic has very little to do with it.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' November 14, 2011, 12:28:23 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| Is doppelwuerschmidt just 2-wuerschmidt?
| |
| | |
| - '''mbattaglia1''' November 14, 2011, 04:53:51 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| It's 2-wuerschmidt yes. It seemed a notable scale construction to me (I put it in there after all) but if y'all want to take it out, at least be sure to include some mention of how skwares relates to wuerschmidt.
| |
| | |
| But if a double wuerschmidt is not notable, neither should be a half //, which is there too. If you go down that path you might end up with infinitessimal generators.
| |
| | |
| In my opinion, if we're talking a difference the magnitude of ten cents in the generator it has a good shot at being a different temperament. For that matter I find 14/9 and 25/16 distinct intervals.
| |
| | |
| - '''Kosmorsky''' November 14, 2011, 07:36:00 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| Whoa whoa whoa, what is this difference of ten cents?? Optimal doppelwuerschmidt and optimal skwares are extremely similar. Twice the TE wuerschmidt generator is 774.87 cents, and the TE skwares generator is 775.00 cents. That's a difference of 0.13 cents, not 10 cents.
| |
| | |
| - '''keenanpepper''' November 14, 2011, 11:26:44 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| Between 25/16 and 14/9 just, not necessarily the optimal generator. Is double the optimal TE wuerschmidt generator still optimal for "doppelwuerschmidt"/skwares?
| |
| | |
| I'm not opposed to just linking them, just trying to be sure.
| |
| | |
| - '''Kosmorsky''' November 14, 2011, 11:45:42 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| Actually, yeah, you're probably right.
| |
| | |
| - '''Kosmorsky''' November 14, 2011, 11:50:04 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| Here are 1200-2*POTE for various temperaments in the family:
| |
| | |
| 5-limit Wuerschmidt: 424.402
| |
| | |
| 7-limit Wurschmidt: 425.234
| |
| | |
| 7-limit Worschmidt: 425.216
| |
| | |
| 7-limit Whirrschmidt: 424.238
| |
| | |
| We can compare this to:
| |
| | |
| 7-limit Squares: 425.942
| |
| | |
| 11-limit Squares: 425.957
| |
| | |
| 13-limit Squares: 425.550
| |
| | |
| Skwares: 425.244
| |
| | |
| - '''genewardsmith''' November 14, 2011, 11:54:00 AM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |
| Beautiful, thank you all.
| |
| | |
| - '''Kosmorsky''' November 14, 2011, 08:37:12 PM UTC-0800
| |
| ----
| |