Talk:Diaschismic
Merge with Srutal and diaschismic
Leaving this as a note here that I'll try to merge the two pages. ("Srutal and diaschismic" covers 2.3.5.7.17 diaschismic and full 17-limit srutal; "srutal" is a way more complex extension so I don't really mind if its interval table disappears; the one on this page is serviceable for full 17-limit diaschismic though I'd ideally want to separate the 2.3.5.17 core from the further extensions, and this page should really prioritize the basic 2.3.5.17 temperament.) -- Lériendil (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- And nomenclature is particularly thorny for this temperament because it de-facto has two canonical extensions, srutal (34d&46) and diaschismic (46&58), given that it's referred to by both names in the 5-limit. I'd personally vote for renaming the 5-limit temperament simply to "diaschismic", but it makes the canonicity of the 46&58 extension especially dubious. I think it might be best to transfer over the material from my page concerning septimal diaschismic that I can, while repurposing the rest of that page for general discussion about diaschismic extensions. -- Lériendil (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- 5-limit = diaschismic. It's canonical extension (12 & 46) is diaschismic.
- Pajara is actually the only other viable extension of diaschismic that I can take seriously. It's not accurate for sure, but it does what it does well.
- I have not and will never use the term "srutal". 34d&46 is hopeless, just look at the badness ranking.
- 2.3.5.17 is interesting for sure but I can't say I'm impressed by it in practice. The subgroups doesn't particularly open up many new possibilities.
- Idk if this is useful lol just ranting now.
- – Sintel🎏 (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think the srutal vs diaschismic page is hopeless and I can't care less about it, which is why I created this page for a fresh start. Moreover I'd like to keep this place to discuss diaschismic as a 17-limit temp, like catakleismic as a no-17 19-limit temp, so of course I object to merging. Instead I'd like to eventually have one page for each 7-limit temp in the diaschismic family, tho this won't happen too soon. As for the no-7 temp, it could remain under srutal vs diaschismic or changed to something like srutal archagall.
- Canonicity of septimal diaschismic may be reasoned on the fact that the 5-limit optimum is around 46edo in certain optimization schemes, not significantly sharper.