Talk:Marvel
Subheadings for scales
I suggest this although I realize that an extensive table of contents has a certain repellent effect on some readers. What do you think? --Xenwolf (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Challenge on optimality of 53edo for FloraC
53edo is consistent in the 7-limited 105-odd-limit except for two interval pairs (50/49 and 75/49 and their octave-complements). Can any other edo tuning of marvel even come close to this faithful of a representation of the 7-limit lattice? 72edo does better with only one inconsistent interval pair in the 125-odd-limit (128/125 and its octave-complement, unsurprisingly), but it's optimized for different things than just pure marvel. Similarly 41edo does even better in terms of consistency but it's clearly more overtempered than 72edo. I also don't believe that the inconsistency of 50/49 and 75/49 are particularly important, except for the damage on 7/5 and 10/7 which as far as I can tell is the only real flaw of 53edo's marvel.
Here is how every edo up to and including 240 which tempers out 225/224 with a consistent 9-odd-limit performs in the 105-odd-limit, which seems the largest 7-limited odd-limit that is reasonable to consider because 125 is obviously gonna cause inconsistencies in most tunings as 5 is the most tempered prime in marvel cuz of 32/25 = 9/7 and 7/6 = 75/64 among others.
>>> for edo in range(1,241): # using https://en.xen.wiki/w/User:Godtone#My_Python_3_code
... if inconsistent_ivs_by_val(odd_lim(9),val(lim(7),ed(edo)))==[] and pval(S(15),ed(edo))==0:
... print(edo,'EDO:',', '.join([ striv(x) for x in inconsistent_ivs_by_val( odd_lim(9,[],[15,21,25,27,35,45,49,63,75,81,105]), val(lim(7),ed(edo)) ) ])+'\n')
...
12 EDO: 49/48, 49/45, 54/49, 81/70, 98/81, 60/49, 35/27, 64/49, 49/36, 72/49, 49/32, 54/35, 49/30, 81/49, 140/81, 49/27, 90/49, 96/49
19 EDO: 64/63, 49/48, 128/105, 49/40, 64/49, 49/32, 80/49, 105/64, 96/49, 63/32
22 EDO: 81/80, 50/49, 27/25, 25/21, 49/40, 100/81, 63/50, 81/64, 80/63, 98/75, 75/49, 63/40, 128/81, 100/63, 81/50, 80/49, 42/25, 50/27, 49/25, 160/81
29 EDO: 49/48, 36/35, 28/27, 25/24, 27/25, 49/45, 35/32, 54/49, 81/70, 75/64, 98/81, 128/105, 60/49, 100/81, 32/25, 35/27, 64/49, 49/36, 48/35, 112/81, 25/18, 36/25, 81/56, 35/24, 72/49, 49/32, 54/35, 25/16, 81/50, 49/30, 105/64, 81/49, 128/75, 140/81, 49/27, 64/35, 90/49, 50/27, 48/25, 27/14, 35/18, 96/49
31 EDO: 81/80, 81/70, 100/81, 81/64, 112/81, 81/56, 128/81, 81/50, 140/81, 160/81
41 EDO:
50 EDO: 81/80, 64/63, 50/49, 21/20, 27/25, 81/70, 32/27, 128/105, 49/40, 100/81, 63/50, 81/64, 80/63, 64/49, 21/16, 27/20, 112/81, 45/32, 64/45, 81/56, 40/27, 32/21, 49/32, 63/40, 128/81, 100/63, 81/50, 80/49, 105/64, 27/16, 140/81, 50/27, 40/21, 49/25, 63/32, 160/81
53 EDO: 50/49, 98/75, 75/49, 49/25
60 EDO: 64/63, 49/48, 36/35, 25/24, 35/32, 54/49, 75/64, 128/105, 49/40, 32/25, 64/49, 21/16, 49/36, 48/35, 45/32, 64/45, 35/24, 72/49, 32/21, 49/32, 25/16, 80/49, 105/64, 128/75, 49/27, 64/35, 48/25, 35/18, 96/49, 63/32
72 EDO:
82 EDO: 81/80, 36/35, 25/24, 27/25, 35/32, 54/49, 28/25, 81/70, 75/64, 25/21, 98/81, 128/105, 100/81, 63/50, 32/25, 35/27, 75/56, 48/35, 25/18, 36/25, 35/24, 112/75, 54/35, 25/16, 100/63, 81/50, 105/64, 81/49, 42/25, 128/75, 140/81, 25/14, 49/27, 64/35, 50/27, 48/25, 35/18, 160/81
84 EDO: 81/80, 49/48, 28/27, 49/45, 54/49, 81/70, 98/81, 60/49, 81/64, 35/27, 98/75, 49/36, 112/81, 81/56, 72/49, 75/49, 54/35, 128/81, 49/30, 81/49, 140/81, 49/27, 90/49, 27/14, 96/49, 160/81
91 EDO: 81/80, 64/63, 49/48, 16/15, 35/32, 75/64, 32/27, 128/105, 49/40, 81/64, 80/63, 32/25, 64/49, 21/16, 48/35, 45/32, 64/45, 35/24, 32/21, 49/32, 25/16, 63/40, 128/81, 80/49, 105/64, 27/16, 128/75, 64/35, 15/8, 96/49, 63/32, 160/81
94 EDO: 50/49, 25/24, 27/25, 28/25, 75/64, 25/21, 100/81, 63/50, 32/25, 98/75, 75/56, 25/18, 36/25, 112/75, 75/49, 25/16, 100/63, 81/50, 42/25, 128/75, 25/14, 50/27, 48/25, 49/25
113 EDO: 25/24, 35/32, 28/25, 75/64, 128/105, 32/25, 75/56, 48/35, 25/18, 45/32, 64/45, 36/25, 35/24, 112/75, 25/16, 105/64, 128/75, 25/14, 64/35, 48/25
125 EDO: 50/49, 49/45, 54/49, 28/25, 75/64, 98/81, 60/49, 56/45, 98/75, 75/56, 112/81, 81/56, 112/75, 75/49, 45/28, 49/30, 81/49, 128/75, 25/14, 49/27, 90/49, 49/25
144 EDO: 81/80, 64/63, 16/15, 35/32, 75/64, 32/27, 128/105, 56/45, 81/64, 32/25, 64/49, 75/56, 112/81, 45/32, 64/45, 81/56, 112/75, 49/32, 25/16, 128/81, 45/28, 105/64, 27/16, 128/75, 64/35, 15/8, 63/32, 160/81
166 EDO: 50/49, 25/24, 16/15, 15/14, 27/25, 49/45, 28/25, 75/64, 25/21, 128/105, 60/49, 56/45, 63/50, 32/25, 98/75, 75/56, 25/18, 45/32, 64/45, 36/25, 112/75, 75/49, 25/16, 100/63, 45/28, 49/30, 105/64, 42/25, 128/75, 25/14, 90/49, 50/27, 28/15, 15/8, 48/25, 49/25
197 EDO: 81/80, 64/63, 50/49, 28/27, 25/24, 16/15, 15/14, 49/45, 54/49, 28/25, 75/64, 32/27, 25/21, 98/81, 128/105, 60/49, 56/45, 81/64, 32/25, 98/75, 75/56, 112/81, 45/32, 64/45, 81/56, 112/75, 75/49, 25/16, 128/81, 45/28, 49/30, 105/64, 81/49, 42/25, 27/16, 128/75, 25/14, 49/27, 90/49, 28/15, 15/8, 48/25, 27/14, 49/25, 63/32, 160/81
--Godtone (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Because the consistency argument may not be sufficiently convincing, here is optimal_edo_sequences (minimising the mean square cent error on the tonality diamond, with cent error deviations weighted by the square-root of the odd-limit of each interval, which is the most forgiving tuning fidelity that can be reasonable) for edos tempering out S15:
>>> odds = [k for k in range(1,125,2) if len(fact_int(k))<=4]
>>> odds
[1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 15, 21, 25, 27, 35, 45, 49, 63, 75, 81, 105]
>>> for i in range(3,len(odds)): # 0th odd is 1, 1st odd is 3, 2nd odd is 5, 3rd odd is 7
... print('7-limited '+str(odds[i])+'-odd-limit:',optimal_edo_sequence(odds[:i+1],[edo for edo in range(1,312) if pval(S(15),ed(edo))==0]))
...
7-limited 7-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 31, 72, 103, 175, 228]
7-limited 9-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 31, 41, 53, 72, 125, 166]
7-limited 15-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 31, 41, 53, 72, 125, 166]
7-limited 21-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 29, 31, 41, 72, 113, 125, 166, 197]
7-limited 25-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 31, 53, 72, 84, 156, 240]
7-limited 27-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 31, 41, 53, 72, 125, 197, 281]
7-limited 35-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 31, 41, 53, 72, 125]
7-limited 45-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 31, 41, 53, 72, 125]
7-limited 49-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 31, 41, 72, 197]
7-limited 63-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 31, 41, 72, 197]
7-limited 75-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 31, 41, 72, 197]
7-limited 81-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 31, 41, 53, 72, 113, 166]
7-limited 105-odd-limit: [2, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 31, 41, 53, 72, 113, 125, 166]
Notice that we haven't put any constraints on tempering or consistency (other than tempering out 225/224 by patent val) and 53edo still shows up everywhere except the 7-limited 49-, 63- and 75-odd-limit. 31 shows up everywhere simply by absence of good enough smaller competitors; same with 41edo though it disappears from the 7-limited 25-odd-limit due to the overflat 25. 72edo is very good as it appears everywhere. I also want to point out that 240edo is not only arguably too many notes for marvel but also only appears a single time! I really doubt that 240edo is optimal in any meaningful sense (except being a nice composite number of notes I guess) because it has 4 inconsistent interval pairs in the 9-odd-limit already (which is almost half of all interval pairs of the 9-odd-limit). By contrast, 166edo and 197edo both appear 5 times so appear to be well justified in terms of absolute error at least. 125edo is even better and interestingly disappears in practically the same places that 53 disappears: in the 49- to 75- 7-limited odd-limits (though 53edo reappears in the 81-odd-limit while 125 appears one later in the 105-odd-limit). 84edo only appears once but it appears in a theoretically notable odd-limit for marvel: the 25-odd-limit, which is notable for being challenging because of marvel's inclination to temper 5 significantly flat (and this is also where 41edo disappears), so IMO isn't so bad either because we know it satisfies the strict requirements and because it appears in the optimal_edo_sequence for all full odd-limits 23 thru 51 and appears in the strict_optimal_edo_sequence (meaning identical except instead based on relative error instead of absolute, so that the list is a strict subset) for a lot of those too, so that it's a natural tuning to consider for high-limit marvel.
--Godtone (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
A clarification on why the 7-limited 25-odd-limit is important to analyse for marvel: it is the smallest odd-limit which introduces a tempered equivalence within the interval set of the odd-limit other than the trivial ~16/15~15/14, and the 25-odd-limit has significantly higher tuning fidelity than anything in the 9-odd-limit; the square root of 25/9 is 5/3, so the tuning fidelity required is almost double even if we use the very forgiving (nonstrict) "square root of the odd-limit" as a weighting for cent error, and is almost thrice otherwise, or even more if you are concerned with pure dyadic convincingness. Therefore, an optimized marvel tuning must clearly tune closer to 32/25 than to 9/7, because there is no good reason that the musically useful augmented fifth ~25/16 should be discarded as a target given how naturally marvel extends a 5-limit lattice into the 7-limit, giving rise to things like the marveldene. There is also ~28/25~9/8 in the 7-limited 25-odd-limit but the usefulness of that seems more dubious, but it does show why ideally prime 3 should be tuned flat, hence systems like 72edo and 84edo.
(I think the one thing I do agree with though is that 16/15 is obviously undertempered in 53edo, but it seems to come about as a result of other considerations so I'm not fully sure it can be evaded because only a single 3 and 5 are involved. If you ask me, the smallest edo that is obviously "more optimized" (in terms of tuning) than 53edo for marvel is 125edo, its tuning profile looks about exactly correct as far as I ca tell. But that is over double the notes! I wouldn't dare add a single note more because already there is a lot of inconsistencies in higher 7-limited odd-limits as I've shown; I'll elaborate a little in the next (and final) post.)
--Godtone (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
So here's one important reason why I think probably only 125edo is a more optimized marvel tuning:
>>> [edo for edo in range(1,312) if pval(S(15),ed(edo))==0 and len(inconsistent_ivs_by_val(odd_lim(9,[],[15,21,25,27,35,45]),val(lim(7),ed(edo)))) <= 6]
[12, 19, 22, 31, 41, 53, 72, 84, 125] # all of these have no more than 3 inconsistent interval pairs in the 7-limited 45-odd-limit
(The list here is the same if we instead use "no more than 2 inconsistent interval pairs in the 7-limited 45-odd-limit".)
Also just intuitively its tuning profile looks about as optimized as could be for marvel, and regardless, the step size is getting close to being the same size as 225/224 so that by the time we get to 130edo and 140edo we clearly wanna detemper it.
--Godtone (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Consistency is irrelevant for multirank temps. I'm sure I've related this to you many times. If you care about efficiency, the most efficient way to use these temps is always to only take the notes closest to the tonic on the lattice. None of the larger edos is "too many notes" if you're using the same scale/block in the lattice as they only differ by intonation.
- I strongly disagree about the metric you use to derive the "optimal edo sequence" and I've said this a few times too. I know you spent lots of time on it but first of all pls stop citing it as if it was some kind of objective metric. I've been skeptical about any claims involving taking average values from these diamonds. There's lots of open questions, like how you choose intervals from a tonality diamond. A tonality diamond has duplicate, unreduced intervals, e.g. for 3/2 there's 6/4, 9/6, and so on. Did you include these, reduced or unreduced? I guess you didn't, but why not? To be fair I don't think there's an answer to the best practice. The choices one makes here only represent how they see it and not others.
- For those reasons, I think metrics based on tonality diamonds are more questionable than prime-based/all-interval optimization schemes, and you can still give complex intervals more weight in these schemes. It's just that all complexity weighting faces the paradox that a growing weight suddenly plunges to zero at the edge of the limit, plus that tuning the octave pure no longer makes sense cuz if tuning sensitivity grows with complexity, the octave is supposed to be the least sensitive to mistuning.
- 105-odd-limit makes no sense for marvel as 25/16 is already conflated with 14/9. If I may propose an odd limit to look at, I'd say 21. But again I certainly won't recommend the metric you used. The very point of these temps is to trade high-odd-limit low-prime-limit intervals for low-odd-limit high-prime-limit intervals, in this case high-odd-limit HC5 intervals for low-odd-limit HC7 intervals. Your metric favors intervals like 75/64 over 7/6 which is a huge failure in assessing optimal tunings. They are the same one note in the temp and when playing it, no one cares it's out of tune from 75/64 as much as from 7/6. Similar story for 25/16 vs 14/9, or 32/25 vs 9/7 (ofc 25/16 isn't totally discarded: it's normally targeted more than for example 75/64; I just strongly disagree it should take priority over 14/9).
- As for the larger edos, they don't differ that much. I'm considering random readers here. It's best to offer them a number of choices without judging too much cuz they can judge by themselves. For 240edo specifically I think its tuning profile falls into the fuzzy optimal region as it has a flat 3, flat 5, and sharp 7, tuned pretty evenly out. Whether it's strictly optimal by certain criteria doesn't matter much.
- In response to the choice of odd-limits/tonality diamonds, the answer is very simple: we assume pure octaves so that all octave-equivalents and octave-inversions of every interval in the tonality diamond is included implicitly with equal weighting. In other words, part of the rationale for using pure octaves is that it makes the use of odd-limits perfectly natural because there is no bias to specific octave-equivalents or octave-inversions, so that we can truly just think about the approximations of pairs of odd numbers which vastly simplifies analysis (the usefulness of which should not be underestimated). This is also important because any nonzero tempering of the octave causes an infinite number of intervals of any odd-limit to become arbitrarily inconsistent, though in practice this usually doesn't matter. In other words, it's a far clearer direction to optimize for an explicit set of harmonies and then consider octave-tempering afterwards than first allowing octave-tempering and then being unnecessarily paralysed by choice, which IMO causes things like TE to look artificially natural as solutions because they accept the fact that the choice becomes very arbitrary if you allow tempered octaves to justify a disembodied method of optimization that is purely in terms of the basis. That's not to say such a scheme of optimization has no value of course, but it's important to acknowledged the limitations and especially the assumptions of any optimization scheme.
- In response to "all complexity weighting faces the paradox that a growing weight suddenly plunges to zero at the edge of the limit" - this is not a paradox, this is completely expected, and this is exactly why I showed a large range of different odd-limits you could consider, to show that generally the same systems appear for basically all the 7-limited odd-limit targets one might want to consider practically.
- In response to "makes no sense for marvel as 25/16 is already conflated with 14/9. If I may propose an odd limit to look at, I'd say 21", it kinda feels like you ignored my paragraph explaining why 25/16 is important to consider as the minimum odd-limit for judging how truly optimized a marvel tuning really is.
- In response to "pls stop citing it as if it was some kind of objective metric", it's highly customizable and in my experience the lists it gives are pretty universally both interesting and convincing, so I encourage anyone interested in tuning optimization to explore with it (and to raise any concerns on my talk page) as I think most of the lists produced are better and more practically useful than the current standard on the wiki (depending on the exact settings used ofc, but I tried to create the most neutral default I could think of); you are doing the same thing with the metric you wrote, no? And more importantly, I don't think it's reasonable to assume all readers are interested in the optimization philosophy you are proposing where only the simplest intervals are cared about by the optimizer, and I don't even think 25/16 is that complex; it's clearly musically relevant and corresponds to the third-simplest composite odd, after 9/8 which is very simple and 15/8 which is not usually considered to be particularly complex.
- (And before/in case you ask, yes I am aware that it only searches patent vals; you can edit the val used for an edo manually thru EG
patent_vals[80] = val(lim(255),ed(80),'koprsuvBC'); I don't have the skill or energy to write code that auto-deduces the best val and plus that process seems to be something that requires human judgement anyways IMO so it seems better to leave it up to the user to "fix" the vals from patent in whatever way they deem reasonable/optimal; plus the best val depends on the set of target harmonies, meaning that the val would have to be deduced every time the function is run potentially which I suspect would slow down the search a lot as I don't think a proper solution to the problem of finding the right val would be light on computation (I don't think that simply taking the patent thru a stretched octave is the right solution in general, even if it usually gives the right results). Plus, I'm admittedly suspicious of using warted vals by default because of two considerations: for small edos, warting the val causes implausibility amounts of damage, and for large edos, one would hope that the edo is good enough that you don't need to use a non-patent val, except for warting maybe one prime, and if it really is that good then you'd hope that it can afford to take the damage from using the patent mapping for that prime and still appear in whateveroptimal_edo_sequenceyou are considering.)
- (And before/in case you ask, yes I am aware that it only searches patent vals; you can edit the val used for an edo manually thru EG
- I'm okay with leaving the page as is at the time of writing though; I just wanted to respond to your points.