Arithmetic tuning: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) simplify inline math |
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) fix section capitalization |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* [[US|US, utonal sequence]] | * [[US|US, utonal sequence]] | ||
=== Basic | === Basic examples === | ||
Basic examples of arithmetic tunings: | Basic examples of arithmetic tunings: | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
But it is also possible to — instead of equally dividing the octave in 12 equal parts by pitch — divide it into 12 equal parts by '''frequency''', or '''length'''. In the former case, you will have 12-EFDO, and in the latter case, you will have 12-ELDO. However, that's not exactly ideal because, as with arithmetic sequences, different acronyms are used to distinguish rational (JI) tunings from irrational (non-JI) tunings, and so EFD and ELD are typically reserved for irrational tunings, such as 12-EFDφ. So it would be more appropriate to name these two tunings 12-ODO and 12-UDO, for otonal divisions of the octave and utonal divisions of the octave, respectively. | But it is also possible to — instead of equally dividing the octave in 12 equal parts by pitch — divide it into 12 equal parts by '''frequency''', or '''length'''. In the former case, you will have 12-EFDO, and in the latter case, you will have 12-ELDO. However, that's not exactly ideal because, as with arithmetic sequences, different acronyms are used to distinguish rational (JI) tunings from irrational (non-JI) tunings, and so EFD and ELD are typically reserved for irrational tunings, such as 12-EFDφ. So it would be more appropriate to name these two tunings 12-ODO and 12-UDO, for otonal divisions of the octave and utonal divisions of the octave, respectively. | ||
=== Comparing | === Comparing arithmetic tunings === | ||
We can state a few helpful analogies: | We can state a few helpful analogies: | ||