Talk:POTE tuning: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
From my perspective, this seems more intuitive: | From my perspective, this seems more intuitive: | ||
* Find the TE octave: | * Find the TE octave: (TV)<sub>1</sub>, that is, the first entry of TV. | ||
* POTE = T/ | * POTE = T/(TV)<sub>1</sub> | ||
resulting in | resulting in | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Any idea? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC) | Any idea? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
: OK everything's solved. It should be made more clear that TE generators and TE map are different. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | : OK everything's solved. It should be made more clear that TE generators and TE map are different. While TE gens change on basis, never does TE map. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:11, 25 June 2020
|
This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion. |
"Find POTE = T/T[1]"
It doesn't seem to handle the case where the period is a fraction of an octave. For example, try this diaschismic mapping: [⟨2, 2, 7, 15], ⟨0, 1, -2, -8]]. We know the period is half an octave. Indeed,
T = [599.44659699 703.03185125]
Now POTE = T/T[1] gives
POTE = [1200. 1407.36176623]
Is this correct?
Besides, since I don't see a definition of TE generator, I don't know if it should be octave reduced, period reduced or left as is. Changing the basis definitely changes the result. Does TE generators specify a basis or whatever maps are accepted?
From my perspective, this seems more intuitive:
- Find the TE octave: (TV)1, that is, the first entry of TV.
- POTE = T/(TV)1
resulting in
POTE = [600. 703.68088312]