Talk:1ed28c
Merge request
When considering whether this is identical enough to 16edf to merge, I compared the harmonic approximations of both:
| Harmonic | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Absolute (¢) | +4.0 | +2.0 | +8.0 | +13.7 | +6.0 | -8.8 | +12.0 | +4.1 | -10.3 | -7.3 | +10.0 | +11.5 | -4.8 | -12.3 | -12.0 | -5.0 | +8.1 | -1.5 |
| Relative (%) | +14.3 | +7.3 | +28.6 | +48.9 | +21.6 | -31.5 | +42.9 | +14.6 | -36.8 | -26.1 | +35.9 | +41.0 | -17.2 | -43.8 | -42.9 | -17.7 | +28.9 | -5.4 | |
| Step | 43 | 68 | 86 | 100 | 111 | 120 | 129 | 136 | 142 | 148 | 154 | 159 | 163 | 167 | 171 | 175 | 179 | 182 | |
| Harmonic | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Absolute (¢) | +0.0 | -4.3 | +0.0 | +4.4 | -4.3 | +7.9 | +0.0 | -8.6 | +4.4 | +6.8 | -4.3 | -3.3 | +7.9 | +0.1 | +0.0 | +6.7 | -8.6 | +9.5 |
| Relative (%) | +0.0 | -15.3 | +0.0 | +15.7 | -15.3 | +28.4 | +0.0 | -30.7 | +15.7 | +24.4 | -15.3 | -11.9 | +28.4 | +0.4 | +0.0 | +23.9 | -30.7 | +33.9 | |
| Steps (reduced) |
43 (0) |
68 (25) |
86 (0) |
100 (14) |
111 (25) |
121 (35) |
129 (0) |
136 (7) |
143 (14) |
149 (20) |
154 (25) |
159 (30) |
164 (35) |
168 (39) |
172 (0) |
176 (4) |
179 (7) |
183 (11) | |
The mappings of 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are different.
1ed28c has a meaningfully better 3, 9, 14 and 19.
43edo has a meaningfully better 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16.
It seems that 1ed28c is just a less useful tuning in most ways, so I think a merge is most likely a good idea, and the merged article could mention being close to 1ed28c but doesn't need to go into detail.
--BudjarnLambeth (talk) 23:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)