Talk:29edo

This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion.

Logarithmic mathematical constants vs acoustic mathematical constants

When we are hearing logarithmic phi, we are in fact hearing the number 2**(phi) = 3.070

Same thing for logarithmic pi, the number that comes to our ears is 2**(pi) = 8.825

While these intervals can still be used in a way or another as useful tones in a piece of music, they don't correspond to anything.

Moreover, music is fundamentally the art of numbers made audible. This is something that was already known in antiquity. That's why I believe that what is completely outside the "grid of numbers" and the "harmonic grids" that emerge from it does not truly correspond to what music is fundamentally nor to the actual functioning of hearing (for this reason, I believe that most of what was composed in the Second Viennese School does not truly correspond to what music is deeply about, although it is interesting to analyse intellectually).

This is why I say that logarithmic phi and pi are not musical.

When it comes to acoustic constants, we are truly hearing the mathematical constants phi = 1.6180 and pi = 3.1416

Acoustic constants are the only real musical ones.

--Contribution (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree they are not of much harmonic value, but you seem to be the one who added them yourself.

Plz remember to sign your talk by leaving four tildes.

FloraC (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I attempted to delete what I wrote on the 29edo article.

--Contribution (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as accoustic pi or accoustic any irrational number. However, I think accoustic phi exists as a series of rational numbers that build on themselves recursively and naturally (5:8:13:21:34:55:...) and therefore it has potential importance sonically. However, I disagree with the notion that logarithmic phi is irrelevant. Phi is important because it is the most efficient number for escaping rational approximations, therefore it generates a progression of smooth recursively nested/interrelated structures; MOSSes (Moment Of Symmetry Scales) specifically. (Scales generated by 741.6407865c.) Note that this concept works for any period, so you could do the same thing but interpreting phi (~1.618 or ~-0.618; both are equivalent under period-equivalence) as describing an amount of tritaves, or fifths, etc. It is interesting to me that, for example, 34edo approximates logarithmic phi, as it is a great system non-meantone system. Similarly you can use phi in yet other ways like in the case of golden meantone, which highlights 31edo as especially interesting as a great meantone system. --Godtone (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Also note how it isn't a coincidence that the approximation of logarithmic phi in 34edo is 21/34 octaves. :) --Godtone (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, other acoustic quadratic roots are just like acoustic phi and have associated rational series. For the same reason we might find logarithmic quadratic roots relevant, too. I've also heard that acoustic e is the limit of something. I think we can agree that pi, either acoustic or logarithmic, is irrelevant. FloraC (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)